Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COUNCIL

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that whilst the British Council claims to interpret British life and culture to countries overseas, its governing personnel includes few individuals having any personal experience of life at the income levels of the vast majority of our population; and whether he will now make a statement on the future of the British Council.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. McNeil): The future of the British Council has been under consideration. I hope shortly to be in a position to make a statement.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: I am not asking for political appointments, but would my hon. Friend keep in mind, when vacancies occur, that suitable

appointments might be given to applicants who have first-hand knowledge of the life which is mainly represented on the Government side?

Mr. McNeil: At present, appointments are made by the British Council.

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the inquiry, promised 11 weeks ago, as to whether the chief representative of the British Council in Spain insists that applicants for appointments by the Council for work in Spain shall all be of one particular religion, has now been concluded; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNeil: In 1940, before the present senior British Council representative was posted to Spain, His Majesty's Government made an agreement with the Spanish Government providing that the staff of British institutes in Spain should be Roman Catholics. The British Council operates in Spain in virtue of this agreement. I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that the principle underlying the agreement is open to objection, particularly in view of Article 1 of the United Nations Charter, and my right hon. Friend is considering the question of seeking modification of the agreement or denouncing it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORMER ITALIAN COLONIES, AFRICA

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement as to the ultimate disposal of the Italian Colonies in Africa.

Mr. McNeil: The answer is, "No, Sir."

Mr. Renton: Will the hon. Gentleman remind his right hon. Friend that the uncertainty which has prevailed so long in those Colonies is leading to economic depression? Will the matter be expedited as much as may be?

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend will, of course, take into account all these representations, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, this is not a matter which lies exclusively with us.

Mr. Tiffany: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to fulfil the pledges made to the peoples of the ex-Italian Colonies of Eritrea and ex-Italian Somalia, by loudspeaker and by proclamations distributed by the R.A.F. during the war to defeat the Italians, that when victory was assured they would be permitted to rejoin their ancient motherland, Ethiopia.

Mr. McNeil: As has already been stated in this House, the disposal of the former Italian colonies is, in accordance with the Potsdam decisions, a matter for the Council of Foreign Ministers. His Majesty's Government alone are not, therefore, in a position to give any assurances in this connection.

Mr. Tiffany: Are His Majesty's Government prepared to fulfil the pledges that were given?

Mr. McNeil: The authorship of the pledges to which my hon. Friend referred is slightly doubtful.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL FORCE (AMBASSADOR'S SPEECH)

Major Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a speech by His Majesty's Ambassador to the U.S.A. containing the statement that neither Great Britain nor the U.S.A. would be prepared at present to take the risk of leaving world security to an international force; and whether this is an official statement of the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. McNeil: I have seen the text of the remarks by His Majesty's Ambassador to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The relevant passage runs:

Probably neither your nation nor mine would be prepared today to take the risk of leaving security exclusively to some international force.
The context makes it clear that Lord Halifax was referring to a purely international force depending on a world government, and not to national forces placed at the disposal of an international authority, as provided for in the Charter of the United Nations, and it is upon the Charter that His Majesty's Government founds its foreign policy.

Oral Answers to Questions — CZECHOSLOVAKIA (BRITISH INTERESTS)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now publish the text of the Note addressed by His Majesty's Ambassador in Prague to the Czechoslovak Minister of Foreign Affairs on 22nd November, 1945, regarding compensation for British interests nationalised by the Czechoslovak Government.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply given on 23rd January to my hon. Friend the Member for Erdington (Mr. Julius Silverman.)

Mr. Davies: In arriving at that negative answer, did my hon. Friend take into account the misgivings of Czechoslovakia at that Note, particularly as a result of its garbled form in the Press? Would it not improve the relations between the two countries if the contents of the Note were published?

Mr. McNeil: The Czechoslovak Government did not have to depend on a garbled version in the Press for information on this subject.

Mr. John Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Czechoslovak Government have offered the same treatment to Czech citizens as to British, despite the fact that the Schicht margarine works, which is the subject of this Question, was actively supporting the Henlein party?

Mr. McNeil: The Government are not answerable for Czechoslovak nationals.

Oral Answers to Questions — . INTER-GOVERNMENTAL COMMITTEE ON REFUGEES

Earl Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the exist-


ence and functions of the Inter-Governmental Committee for Refugees are to be continued; and the number of displaced persons still remaining in Europe who come within the mandate of the Inter-Governmental Committee.

Mr. McNeil: The number of displaced persons in Europe who are able and willing to return to their homes, and therefore are not within the Committee's mandate, is in process of ascertainment. No estimate of the number of people within the Committee's mandate can therefore yet be formed. The existence and functions, however, of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees are to be continued pending the result of deliberations, now proceeding, by the United Nations on the general refugee problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N.R.R.A.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper.

Earl Winterton—: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will obtain from the appropriate. British Government representative upon U.N.R.R.A. a monthly statement of the activities of the organisation in the countries in which it operates, especially the national position of the inhabitants, and place a copy in the Library.

Earl Winterton: In view of the large number of Questions on the Order Paper, Mr. Speaker, I do not wish Question No. 12 to be answered orally.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTERN EUROPE (BROADCASTS)

Mr. Gordon-Walker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with the adequacy of the present technical facilities for broadcasts from this country to Eastern European countries, particularly for broadcasts in the German and Polish languages.

Mr. McNeil: The present arrangement represents an attempt to satisfy all the interests involved. There is only a limited number of wavelengths available to be shared between the B.B.C.'s European and Domestic Services. Moreover, the use of very powerful transmitters may interfere with the reception of distress signals and so affect safety of life at sea,

and the question of interference with other countries broadcasting services has also to be considered. I have accepted the present arrangements as being the best that can be devised having regard to these limitations. But my hon. Friend may rest assured that I am aware of the importance of our broadcasts to Europe, and that I will continue to watch the position in the hope that further means may be found of improving the service.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Is consideration being given to the question of Russian language broadcasts from London?

Mr. McNeil: Tentative consideration has, been given to this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY

Mr. Anthony Nutting: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the recent exchange of Notes between His Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government, on the question of the revision of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend is not yet in a position to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (ALLIED CONTROL)

Mr. Anthony Nutting: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made towards the establishment of the Far Eastern Com mission and the Advisory Council for Japan, in accordance with the decisions of the recent Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers.

Mr. McNeil: Many of the members of the original Far Eastern Commission have recently been on a visit to Japan. It is expected that the first meeting of the Commission as constituted in accordance with the decisions of the Moscow Conference will be held soon after their return to Washington this month. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to be in a position to announce the appointment of the member who will represent jointly the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and India on the Allied Council for Japan

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN

Franco Régime

Mr. Nutting: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been sent to the French Government's proposal that His Majesty's Government should join in diplomatic action with the intention of bringing an end to the Franco regime in Spain.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reasons the proposed Anglo-French-American meetings in Paris to discuss future relations with Spain have been abandoned,

Mr. McNeil: In their reply His Majesty's Government welcomed the French Government's approach and expressed agreement with their view that any action to be taken in the sense suggested should be concerted between His Majesty's Government, the French and the United States Governments. His Majesty's Government have further informed the Governments of France and of the United States of their readiness to continue to exchange views on the questions of policy to be adopted towards the present Spanish Government. The three Governments are, in fact, in close touch on the subject through the normal diplomatic channels, and there seemed therefore no cause to pursue the tentative suggestion of holding a special tripartite meeting for the purpose.

Mr. Nutting: Is my hon. Friend aware, and, if so, would he bear in mind, that perhaps with the Spanish people more than any other, a policy of overt pressure and public threats is the least likely to achieve the desired result of bringing about the downfall of Franco, and is the most likely to precipitate any waverers in support of Franco?

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has already dealt with that specific question in this House. It is not the only question bearing upon this subject.

Mr. Warbey: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the British Government are not lagging behind the French or American Governments in their attitude towards, the regime of General Franco? Will he also make it clear that we are willing to take all practical steps to assist in the restoration in Spain of a democratic and Republican regime?

Mr. McNeil: So far as my right hon. Friend is concerned, I am sure that blunt language has made it plain that we are not lagging in any way in displaying our attitude.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: What right have our Government to interfere in the internal affairs of Spain?

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government are not interfering, but they are a signatory to the Charter of the United Nations.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it not the case that the Franco Administration in Spain is itself the result of foreign intervention in that country, and that but for that foreign intervention would not be there?

Mr. McNeil: Happily, I have no reason to accept any responsibility for that course of events.

Major Randolph Churchill (Visit)

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on whose authority. Major Randolph Churchill was given a permit for his present visit to Spain; whether he was given priority travel facilities; and whether he is performing any official mission.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have been asked to reply in the absence abroad of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Information, whose Department is concerned. A request was made to the Ministry of Information by an American news-agency for help in securing transport facilities in Europe for Major Churchill, who was employed by them to write a series of articles. Exit permits are not now required for travel abroad, but routine assistance in the matter of transport facilities was provided for journeys by Major Churchill to a number of countries including Spain. Similar assistance has been given to many other journalists. He is not, of course, on any official mission.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: Is my hon. Friend aware that in at least one other country which Major Churchill visited, he is alleged to have said to His- Majesty's Ambassador in that country that his self-imposed mission abroad was to discredit as much as possible the Socialist Government in England?

Captain Sir Peter MacDonald: Is not the visit of Major Churchill at least as desirable as the visits of Professor Laski, who tours the whole world?

Mr. Wilson: With regard to the first supplementary, I do not think my right hon. Friend was aware of the statement made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Flight-Lieutenant Haire), and I am sure that if he were aware of it, he would agree that Major Churchill had a very difficult task.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUMANIA (GOVERNMENT)

Major Guy Lloyd asked: the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the inclusion of one member of the National Peasant Party and one member of the National Liberal Party in Rumania fulfils the agreement of the Moscow Conference to broaden the basis of the Government of that country; and what percentage do the two additions mentioned bear to the total number of members of that Government.

Mr. McNeil: The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes," and to the second part "10 per cent."

Major Lloyd: Is it the opinion of His Majesty's Government that Rumania now has a democratic regime?

Mr. McNeil: I do not think that arises from this Question. His Majesty's Government are satisfied that the Moscow Agreement on this subject has been implemented.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister assure the House from his knowledge, that Rumania has not a landlord and capitalist regime?

Mr. Austin: Will my hon. Friend also convey to his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary the fact that in Greece there is no Socialist representation whatsoever?

Mr. McNeil: I think that is a very doubtful assumption.

Oral Answers to Questions — YUGOSLAVIA (GENERAL MIHAILOVITCH)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consider publishing a digest of the

information in the Government's possession as to the extent to which Chetnik units under the command of General Mihailovitch collaborated with, or received help from, Italian and German forces and engaged in hostilities against partisan troops under Marshal Tito fighting on the side of the Allies.

Mr. McNeil: The information available is extensive, lacking in precision, and in parts conflicting. My right hon. Friend therefore does not consider the publication of a digest feasible.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is, in fact, no doubt, in the light of the information that the Government possess, that Chetnik units under the command General Mihailovitch did accept assistance from German and Italian forces in fighting the troops of Marshal Tito?

Mr. McNeil: I think that, as far as that is a statement, it is accurate, but as I have indicated, other assertions have been made, and they are very vague.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the Minister publishes anything, will he also publish the German declaration under which the same price was put on the head of General Mihailovitch as on the head of Marshal Tito, and does this suggest that General Mihailovitch co-operated very much?

Mr. McNeil: I think the hon. Gentleman's question upholds the conclusion arrived at by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Wilkes: Is the Minister aware that in the War Office files there can be found the detailed German order of battle for Yugoslavia and the official attachments of Chetnik units to these German brigades and panzer units?

Major Lloyd: Can the Minister say where Marshal Tito was at the time when Yugoslavia found her soul under the King, and General Mihailovitch?

Oral Answers to Questions — ETHIOPIA (GOVERNMENT)

Mr. Tiffany: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the member of the Ethiopian Parliament who has been elected by the people of the Ogaden to represent them has appealed on their behalf for the restoration of their homeland to democratic


government within the Ethiopian Empire and for the withdrawal of the British Military Administration; and what action he proposes to take in respect of this demand.

Mr. McNeil: My information is that there have been no elections in the Ogaden.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE (ANGLO-AMERICAN COMMITTEE)

Squadron-Leader Hollis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the report of the Anglo-American Palestinian Committee will be published.

Mr. McNeil: The final decision on this subject can only be taken in consultation with the United States Government. His Majesty's Government, however, presume that this report will be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (X ORGANISATION)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any further information about the apprehension of the persons concerned in the recent X-ite uprising in Kalamata and in the murder of 14 hostages.

Mr. McNeil: The area is still under martial law and judicial measures are therefore in the hands of military courts under the authority of the Military Governor. However, 48 warrants have so far been issued and 11 arrests have been made. An intensive drive is also being made throughout the province to disarm all elements of the population.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Has the hon. Gentleman any information about the apprehension of the murderers of the local leader of the X movement, his two bodyguards and his infant son, which according to the Minister's statement in the House caused the original trouble in Kalamata?

Mr. McNeil: I hardly think this arises from the Question.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLISH SECOND CORPS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in view of the

fact that the Polish Second Corps is subject to Army regulations prohibiting political activities, to what extent His Majesty's Government exercise control over the conduct of officers or agents of this corps towards foreign Powers; and whether he is satisfied that no officers or agents of General Anders are engaged in. propaganda or activities, or co-operating with movements, hostile to the present Polish Government.

Mr. McNeil: Though the Polish Second Corps is under British command, the British authorities do not exercise control over all details of internal administration and discipline, which are in the hands of the Poles themselves; nor do they attempt to stifle all freedom of expression. On the other hand, my right hon. Friend is not satisfied with the present position, which is being actively examined. Meanwhile, every effort is made to prevent activities on the part of members of the Second Corps which conflict with the aims of British policy.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, since this country is paying£2 million a month for the upkeep of these troops, we are entitled to insist that they should not embitter our relations with friendly Governments?

Mr. McNeil: I think my right hon. Friend has already expressed himself on that point, as I have, but so far as my hon. Friend is asking for actual detailed supervision, the cost, of course, would be increased, if we had the men in Italy to do the job.

Professor Savory: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this attack on the Polish section of the British Army in Italy is part of the combined propaganda being carried on against the British Army everywhere, in Greece, Indonesia and Egypt, propaganda of the very type to which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs referred last Friday at the Security Council?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEXICO (PETROLEUM AGREEMENT)

Captain Peart: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any agreement has yet been reached with the Mexican Government on the valuation of


petroleum and industrial properties in Mexico; and whether he will make a statement with regard to it.

Mr. McNeil: An agreement was signed on 7th February between His Majesty's Government and the Mexican Government, providing for the appointment of experts to value certain petroleum industrial properties in Mexico in order to determine the compensation to be paid to British subjects affected by acts of expropriation subsequent to 17th March, 1938, by the Mexican Government. Within a month of the receipt of the experts' report, which must be made by the end of one year from the date of the agreement, the two Governments are to initiate diplomatic negotiations with a view to fixing the sum to be paid and the methods and time limit for payment. This agreement follows closely the lines of the agreement reached between the United States Government and the Mexican Government, which was concluded in November, 1941.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN OFFICE(SOUTHERN DEPARTMENT)

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how frequently changes have been made "in the office of Head of the Southern Department in the Foreign Office during the past two years; and what was the length of time each occupant held the post.

Mr. McNeil: There has been only one such change and that was in August, 1945. The previous head of the Southern Department had held the post for four years.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

London Passenger Transport (Public Representation)

Lieutenant William Shepherd: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will take steps to appoint a passengers' council with a view to securing a better service for the public from the L.P.T.B.

The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): Ample provision already exists through the statutory rights of local authorities to make representations to the Railway Rates Tribunal, and through the

local transport groups formed during the war and other similar bodies. The London Passenger Transport Board are at all times willing to receive representations from responsible bodies and members of the public.

Lieutenant Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the present position of this service is not satisfactory, and can he say whether it was this disastrous experiment which encouraged the Government to increase the sphere of public control of road transport?

Mr. Barnes: I do not agree that the L.P.T.B. is a disastrous experiment. Certainly they have made very considerable improvements in their service in recent months.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the Minister taking any steps to see that later buses are run by the L.P.T.B.?

Mr. Barnes: Considerable improvements in that direction have already been made, and they will continue in the near future.

Cheap Fares (Notice)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of War Transport if he can arrange to have a notice posted outside omnibuses indicating when cheap fares are in operation, similar to those posted on tramcars.

Mr. Barnes: Adequate information is available for inspection in omnibuses, and I do not think that the display of an outside notice indicating when cheap fares are in operation is necessary. There would also be practical difficulties.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that that does not coincide with my information, and that if these notices were posted it would save many disputes between conductors and passengers?

Mr. Barnes: If the hon. Member cares to submit to me any more adequate information I will look further into the matter.

New Vehicles (Priorities)

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he is aware that those who applied for licences for vans prior to 1st January, 1946, are worse off as the result of the breakdown of the scheme; and what


steps he will take to ensure that they get first priority over those who made no application.

Major Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of War Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that applications for permits for the purchase of vehicles which were forwarded, prior to 31st December, 1945, to his Department with the support of Regional Transport Commissioners receive priority from motor manufacturers over applications not so supported, or made on or after 1st January, 1946.

Mr. Barnes: It would be impracticable to arrange for applicants to whom a licence to acquire was not issued to have priority of delivery as suggested. I cannot accept the statement that the scheme broke down. I withdrew this control in view of the increased production anticipated this year.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that many people have waited for from six to nine months for licences for these vans and that as the result they feel that chaos in his Department is responsible for the consequences they are suffering now?

Mr. Barnes: I am aware of course of the long waiting list for these cars, but I deny that there is any chaos arising from my decision to decontrol, and the hon. Member might now direct some of his energies to gingering up private enterprise in the production of these vans.

Public Service Vehicles (Increased Width)

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of War Transport if he has made any enquiries as to the increase in the dimensions of public service vehicles desired by manufacturers, operators and the trade unions concerned.

Mr. Perrins: asked the Minister of War Transport if, in view of the complete agreement of all the trade interests concerned that wider public service vehicles are necessary, he will hold a public inquiry on the question of increased dimensions of public service vehicles.

Mr. Barnes: I have reviewed the question of the maximum width of public passenger vehicles and have decided that, to afford greater comfort for passengers and. crews and to assist the export trade, public service vehicles and trolley vehicles

up to eight feet wide should be allowed to operate on roads approved for that purpose. Concessions in regard to the height and weight were announced by my predecessor in November, 1944. I regret I cannot see my way to agree to an increase in the present permitted lengths.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that this statement will give great satisfaction and that it will enable bus manufacturers to compete more fairly in the export market?

Mr. Barnes: I am aware that there is a lot to be said for and against this proposal, and it is only on a slight balance of advantage that I have agreed to the modifications.

Mr. Perrins: Will the Minister agree to go to Birmingham and have a ride in one of our eight foot buses so that he can judge for himself the convenience and comfort they afford to passengers?

Road Fund Statistics

Sir G. Fox: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he is now in a position to publish those statistics ordinarily appearing in the annual report on the administration of the Road Fund which have been omitted during the war years but of which records have been maintained.

Mr. Barnes: During the war highway authorities did their best within the Limits of their available staffs to maintain the normal statistical records. I am not yet able to say how far they succeeded, but it is my intention to include in the next Road Fund Report the best available records of the war years.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Train Staffs (Reliefs)

Lieutenant W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will state the number of train-men who have left trains on running lines during the past 12 months.

Mr. Barnes: The information which the hon. and gallant Member is understood to require is, for the 12 months ended 31st January, 1946, as follows:

Drivers, 195; Firemen, 276, Guards, 526; Total, 997.

Lieutenant Shepherd: In view of the disastrous effect which this has on the railway service, will the Minister tell us what steps he is taking to ensure that it will not be repeated in the forthcoming year?

Mr. Barnes: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility for these matters rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the management of the railway companies and that the railway companies take disciplinary action in cases of this description.

Mr. Popplewell: Is it not a fact that before men leave their trains in this way they have worked a lot of overtime? Is it not also a fact that, so far as train-men generally are concerned, they have done a really magnificent job of work during the war?

Mr. Barnes: I think everyone is only too anxious to acknowledge the magnificent service which railwaymen have rendered during the war, but that does not justify any individual railwayman leaving his train or his duty under present conditions.

Safety

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will review the non-compulsory safety methods and devices at the disposal of the railway companies, with a view, in suitable cases, to their adoption being made compulsory.

Mr. Barnes: New safety devices and improvements to existing ones are constantly under review and are brought into use, in suitable cases, as opportunity permits.

Mr. Sparks: Is the Minister aware that although the railways are by far our safest means of travel, there is anxiety regarding the number of recent accidents; and that for more than 30 years officials of his Department inspecting railway accidents have repeatedly recommended certain measures that should be adopted? Will he look into these recommendations to see to what extent they can be adopted for the safer working of our railways?

Mr. Barnes: I can certainly give the hon. Member the assurance he requires.

New Suburbs, London

Mr. Sparks:: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will arrange for the adoption by the four main line railway

companies and the L.P.T.B. of the railway proposals contained in the Greater London Plan 1944; and whether reconsideration will be given, in the light of the proposals in this Report, to contemplated extensions to open up new suburbs.

Mr. Barnes: In conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning, I am considering the railway proposals contained in the Greater London Plan as well as those in the County of London Plan.

G.W.R. (Suburban Service)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of War Transport what prospect there is of a 15-minutes all stations suburban passenger service from Paddington G.W.R. during the week day periods, six a.m. to midnight, by electrification or diesel railcar service.

Mr. Barnes: So far as I am aware, the traffic is not of a nature which would warrant a service of this kind being undertaken just now.

Train Delays

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of War Transport if he has considered the complaints concerning the train service between Liverpool Street and Witham, Essex, contained in a letter forwarded to him on 29th January by the honourable Member for Maldon; if he is aware that the service on this line has deteriorated in recent months; and what steps he is taking to improve it.

Mr. Barnes:: Yes, Sir; I regret the time-keeping of this service has deteriorated during the winter months. The principal causes have been shortage of experienced staff; poor performance of locomotives due to inadequate maintenance during the war years and inferior quality coal; speed restrictions due to permanent way repairs; and heavy passenger traffic necessitating longer stops at stations and the running of relief trains which at times impede the scheduled trains. I have been in consultation with the railway companies about train delays generally and they have assured me that they are taking all practicable steps within their power to secure improvements.

Mr. Driberg: Even allowing for all the causes of delay which my right hon.


Friend has outlined, could he say whether he has considered the case of the particular train that I have brought to his notice? Why, if sometimes other trains can arrive punctually, should one important train, bringing large numbers of passengers to work in London daily, always be late?

Mr. Barnes: These are some of the points which I have recently represented to the railway managers, and these and other matters are now being carefully examined

Goods Traffic Embargo

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of War Transport when the embargo on goods traffic consigned to St. Ives station, L.N.E.R., Hunts, will be lifted.

Mr. Barnes: Traffic to St. Ives has been affected by general restrictions which the L.N.E.R. Company has had to impose from time to time on the forwarding of goods from places in the north to destinations south of Doncaster and Peterborough. At the present time there is no restriction in force which would affect St Ives.

Sleeping Berths

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of War Transport upon what basis sleeping berths are allotted at Aberdeen Joint station; whether the proportion of sleepers reserved by the company to cover last-minute applications by business men is higher than at other stations; how many first- and third-class sleepers on the London train are normally available for non-priority passengers after provision has been made for Government priority passengers and last-minute business applicants; and if he is aware that sleepers for the journey North can be obtained in London at not more than 10 days' notice, whereas passengers are often informed at Aberdeen that all sleepers for the journey south are booked a fortnight or more ahead.

Mr. Barnes: Thirty-four first-class and 56 third-class sleeping berths are normally provided on the night train from Aberdeen to London. Six first-class and six third-class berths are reserved for allocation to Government priority passengers until the afternoon of the day before travel. Of the berths available to the general public the railway company allocates 17 first-class

and 21 third-class berths to passengers joining the train at Aberdeen and the remainder to passengers from Dundee and other stations south of Aberdeen. These berths are allotted as and when applications are received and none is reserved to meet late applications by business men.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Having regard to the crowds travelling by the trains running to and from Aberdeen will the Minister consider putting on some extra trains?

Mr. Barnes: We have not the trains at the moment to put on.

Blackfriars

Mr. George Wallace: asked the Minister of War Transport if, in view of the overcrowding during the rush-hour periods on the Dartford loop, S.R., he will take steps at an early date to re-introduce, for the benefit of residents of Sidcup, New Eltham and Mottingham, the former alternative service to Blackfriars.

Mr. Barnes: The service to Blackfriars cannot be re-introduced until the Blackfriars signal box, which was destroyed by enemy action, is restored, and signalling apparatus is installed. This work is in progress and should be completed in about six months if sufficient labour is available.

New Passenger Carriages

Mr. McKie: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will make a statement as to the probable date when the first of the new rolling stock, now under construction by the L.M.S., will come into service.

Mr. Barnes: I presume that the hon. Member refers to new passenger carriages; 219 are already in service, and additional units are coming into use each week

Mr. McKie: May I ask the Minister whether, in view of the fact that the L.M.S. Railway new rolling stock has been subject to much advertisement by the Press, he will see that these carriages are forthcoming at the earliest possible moment?

Hours of Work

Mr. McAdam: asked the Minister of War Transport (1) the number of hours worked by engine drivers.
on the four main-line railway company systems, in excess of the standard eight-hour day, during the week commencing 7th January and ending at midnight on the Saturday of the same week; in how many instances did the hours on duty extend beyond 10 hours; and in how many instances did the hours of duty extend beyond that period;
(2) the number of hours worked by goods guards on the four main-line rail company systems in excess of the eight- hour day, during the week commencing 7th January and ending at midnight on Saturday of the same week; in how many instances did the hours of duty extend beyond 10 hours; and in how many instances did the hours on duty extend beyond that period;
(3) the total number of hours worked as special Sunday turns of duty by train men on the systems of the four main-line companies during the period beginning 6th January and ending on 27th January.

Mr. Barnes: The information required is not readily available, but I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as my inquiries have been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Fares (North Atlantic)

Lieutenant W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of War Transport why it is necessary to charge£45 for the Atlantic passage, when. three or four times the normal number of passengers are crowded into each ship.

Mr. Barnes: The fare quoted by the hon. Member is that charged to civilians for passage to Canada in ships fitted out as troop transports. This fare is apprecibly lower than the minimum fare which would apply in the average cabin class ship when engaged in commercial service on the North Atlantic, and very much less than the minimum cabin class fare which would apply in the fastest ships. The reduced rate is fair compensation for the austerity conditions in troop transports, of which passengers are made fully aware before they embark.

Pedigree Livestock

Mr. McKie: asked the Minister of War Transport why shipping space cannot be afforded for the export of pedigree

livestock to the Union of South Africa when it is available to the other Dominions and foreign countries.

Mr. Barnes: Shipping space is being provided for the export of livestock to the Union of South Africa. During the last six months 45 horses and 13 head of cattle were shipped to South Africa, and arrangements are being made for further animals to be taken in a vessel sailing this month.

Mr. McKie: May I ask the Minister to bear this point very much in mind, because many pedigree livestock breeders in the country are seriously hampered?

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY WORKS (REMOVAL)

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that there are many obstacles on the Kent coast above the level of low tide which are causing inconvenience to the inshore fishermen and the local residents; and it he will take steps to achieve some co ordination between the Ministry of Agriculture, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production, all of whom have been involved in recent cases, in order to ensure the early removal of such obstacles.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Good progress is being made in the clearance of military works from the coast within their boundaries by the corporations of holiday towns in this area, working on schemes approved by the War Office. The removal in the public interest of military works, not arranged under one of these schemes by a local authority, is normally undertaken on the responsibility of the Civil Department whose duty it is to safeguard the particular public interest involved. Committees of local representatives of all Departments concerned are now in process of formation to ensure local co-ordination and assignments of responsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION (OVERSEA SERVICE)

Captain Charles Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of public feeling that the present scheme of demobilisation allows small compensa


tion for overseas, as distinct from home, service; and whether he will direct the Service Departments to repatriate by an early date all men, irrespective of service or area in which serving, who have now performed more than three years' duty overseas.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The reasons for the provisions in the release scheme relating to overseas service were fully explained when the scheme was introduced and are still valid. It is the intention of the Service Departments to reduce the length of overseas service as soon as possible.

Captain Smith: In the event of an easing of the transport situation making recasting of the demobilisation programme possible, would the Prime Minister consider using part of the additional transport in order to reduce the tour of service overseas for all Service? to not more than three years?

The Prime Minister: As I have said we are endeavouring to reduce it as soon as we can, taking all considerations into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECRET SESSIONS (SPEECHES, PUBLICATION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Prime Minister if, for the convenience of hon. Members and the benefit of historians, he will obtain and cause to be published as a White Paper or otherwise, the full text of speeches delivered in secret session of this House during the late war by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and other hon. Members speeches, hitherto secret, of which certifiably authentic records exist.

The Prime Minister: No official record was kept, either by the House or by His Majesty's Government, of speeches made by right hon. or hon. Members in the course of Parliamentary proceedings in. secret session.

Mr. Driberg: Can the Prime Minister explain then how it is that some of these speeches have now been published in an American magazine? Can he say a word on the issue of copyright involved? Does copyright in a speech reside entirely in the hon. Member who makes it, or has Parliament as such no prerogative?

The Prime Minister: It is a matter entirely for an hon. Member or a right hon. Member to publish his own speeches or not, as he pleases. The exact question of the copyright of a speech delivered in this House is rather complicated and I would prefer to see the Question on the Paper and to take legal advice before answering it.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA

Occupation Forces

Mr. Gordon-Walker: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether arrangements have now been made for the progressive withdrawal of occupation troops from Austria.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I have at present nothing to add to previous replies on this subject.

Mr. Gordon-Walker: Is the Minister aware of the great inflationary dangers caused by the expenditure of occupation troops, not so much our own alone, but all occupation troops?

Mr. Hynd: His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the cost of the commitments they have entered into as a result of various international agreements that have been made, and these matters are receiving very careful attention.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Can the Minister say definitely that His Majesty's Government are endeavouring to reduce those Forces?

Mr. Hynd: It has already been stated in the House by myself and, I believe, by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what His Majesty's Government desire in this direction, but obviously the situation in the occupied territories is dependent upon international agreement.

Mr. Eden: Could not the Minister make clear to the House what I understand is the position, that His Majesty's Government wish to see this vast army which lies upon Austria reduced at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Hynd: It is the desire of the Government that all vast armies that may be abroad involving the Government in commitments should be reduced at the earliest possible moment, and in accordance with the policy of the Government


the position in Austria should be relieved as soon as practically possible by quadripartite agreement.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Have we expressed our views to our Allies on this subject?

Control Agreement

Mr. Warbey: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress has been made with the preparation of the new Control Agreement for Austria.

Mr. J. Hynd: A draft agreement which reflects the desire of His Majesty's Government that control should be released to the fullest extent practicable has been laid before the Allied Control Authority in Vienna by the British representative.

Mr. Warbey: Arising out of that reply, which will give considerable satisfaction, may I ask whether the Minister will assure the House that His Majesty's Government will press for the earliest possible adoption of the new agreement?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (COAL INDUSTRY)

Mr. Austin: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is in a position to report on the progress achieved in the implementation of the Potter Hyndley Report.

Mr. J. Hynd: The report referred to which was submitted in June of last year, is an Inter-Allied document of a confidential character, and I am not in a position to discuss its contents. The House will, however, be interested to know that considerable progress has been made in the rehabilitation of the coal industry in western Germany. Additional labour has been made available, and improved food rations, clothing and housing have been provided for miners. Production has steadily increased, until it is now about 40 percent of the 1938 figure; from June 1st, 1945, to the end of January, 1946, a total of 5.8 million tons of coal had been exported from Germany.

Mr. Oliver Poole: Is the Chancellor aware that the recommendations of that report were opposed by almost all responsible military authorities? Can he state whether the Government are committed to implementing those recommendations or not?

Mr. Hynd: The Government are committed to exporting the maximum amount of coal that can be made available from Germany, to the advantage of those countries that are dependent upon coal.

Mr. Poole: That is not the point. The point is that the recommendations of this report were opposed by all responsible military authorities on the spot, and my question was whether the Government are fulfilling the recommendations of that report or not.

Mr. Hynd: The question whether the-recommendations of the report are being or can be fulfilled is dependent upon the physical situation, over which it is not inevitable that the Government can have control.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Warbey.

Mr. Chamberlain: In any further recommendations or considerations of this sort, will the Government bear in mind—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Speaker: I have called the next Question.

Mr. Stephen: On a point of Order. Has it not been the practice of this House for many years that when the next Question has been called the Member called gives way in order that there might be a supplementary question on the previous Question?

Mr. Speaker: No, I think not. I am always reminding hon. Members that they can have either lots of Questions and very few supplementaries or lots of supplementaries and very few Questions. I understand that the House prefers to have more answers to Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Fertilisers (Distribution)

Lieut-Colonel Mackeson: asked the Minister of Agriculture why it is still impossible to deliver basic slag to the farmers and merchants in East Kent; when deliveries may be expected to recommence; and what arrangements have been made to increase the allocation of superphosphates.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Owing to congestion on the railways, delay has occurred from time to time in the transport of basic slag


by rail into the South East area. My information is, however, that substantial quantities of this fertiliser have nevertheless been moved into East Kent during the present fertiliser season and that further deliveries are being made by sea as well as by rail. As regards the last part of the Question, ample supplies of superphosphate and other alternative phosphatic fertilisers are available in the South East area for farmers who want phospate and cannot get basic slag.

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: Would the Minister investigate this question of the distribution of fertilisers, in view of the fact that superphosphates come from Scotland to Kent, sugar beet from Nor-folk to Kent and potatoes from Lincolnshire to Kent, and basic slag comes from Lincolnshire? I cannot understand why there has been a shortage of basic slag in the South East area.

Mr. Williams: It is clear that while basic slag must be withdrawn from Lincolnshire to East Sussex or Kent, it is because of a congestion on the railways that there has been any shortage at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Mackeson: Scotland is further off than Lincolnshire.

County Committees (Farming Operations)

Major John Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will publish a list by counties of those farms requisitioned by the W.A.E.Cs., together with their acreages and the total profit or loss on each farm.

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will publish a list by counties of the subjects requisitioned under Defence Regulation 51, and occupied and managed by the Department of Agriculture for England and Wales, or by agricultural executive committees; their acreage; and the accumulated profit or loss as at 30th November, 1944.

Mr. T. Williams: The preparation of a complete list of these farms, together with their acreages, will take a little time, but I will place such a list in the library as soon as possible. I am unable to give figures of profit or loss for the reason stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), on Monday last.

Major Morrison: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that this will

be a full list, and will he say whether it will be in the Library within the next day or so?

Mr. Williams: The executive committees will have to compile their own lists, and the list is bound to take a few days before it is available, but it will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

Mr. De la Bère: Will it be comprehensive?

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture by what authority the W.A.E.C. forcibly entered a farmer's field, particulars of which incident have been sent him; and what method of appeal is open to the farmer.

Mr. T. Williams: The Leicestershire War Agricultural Executive Committee entered and ploughed the field in question under powers conferred by the Cultivation of Lands Order (No. 2) 1940, the farmer having failed to plough the field in compliance with a direction given to him under Defence Regulation 62. Although there is no right of appeal against such a direction it is usual to give an opportunity for the farmer to object. In this case the farmer was informed that he should get in touch with his district committee if he wished to object, but he did not do so.

Sir W. Smithers: While I agree that in, time of emergency a bad farmer should be brought to book, does the Minister recognise that under British law a fanner so treated should have right of appeal to an independent legal tribunal?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend must also remember that we are still living in a period of emergency, and that, in fact, the farmer was given the right to approach his district committee, but failed to do so.

Wages

Mr. De la Beré: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Minister of Labour and the Central Wages Board with a view to the publication of the conclusions arrived at by the Central Wages Board in connection with farm workers wages, giving a full explanation.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. The question of what information is to be issued to the Press after meetings of the Agricultural Wages Board is entirely one for the board itself to decide.

Mr. De la Beré: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the efficient farm worker is entitled to equal fair play with the efficient industrial worker, and does he not realise, in view of the great shortage of food, that we shall not get the food unless we get the men?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend is asking for a statement.

Mr. De la Beré: I want a statement in the proper way.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is satisfied that the policy for agriculture announced on 15th November, 1945, will enable British agriculture to pay a minimum wage of£4 10s. to the agricultural worker in the near future; and, if not, what additional steps he proposes to ensure that the higher wage can and will be paid.

Mr. T. Williams: Adequate remuneration and decent living conditions for farmers and farm workers are among the main objectives of the policy for agriculture which I outlined on 15th November last. The determination of minimum wages, as I have already made clear in reply to recent questions, is the function of the Agricultural Wages Board and I have no power to intervene.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Is the Minister satisfied that in formulating his policy he has done sufficient to enable British agriculture to pay£ 4 10s a week?

Mr. Williams: I did not set out to establish a special wage. I set out to establish what I hope will be a prosperous and stable agricultural policy.

Mr. Austin: Bearing in mind the reluctance of the Minister to interfere, will he refer to the Government the fact that we were elected for the sole purpose of interfering with the maladministration of the Tory Party?

Mr. David Eccles: Is not the Minister aware that the Agricultural Wages Act does in certain circumstances give him power to issue a direction to the Wages Board?

Mr. Williams: I am not aware of any such provision.

Mr. De la Beré: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of how little he is aware?

Manpower

Mr. De la Bèreé: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the last Return issued by his Department showed there were 89,000 fewer farm workers employed on the land than in 1939, he can now give the approximate increase or decrease on this figure at 31st January, 1946; and whether he will give a statement as to the future prospects of labour becoming available.

Mr. T. Williams: The total number of workers on farms, as recorded in the 4th June returns, increased between 1939 and 1945 by 162,000. I regret that information in respect of 31st January, 1946, is not available. As regards the last part of the Question, all practicable steps will be taken to see that the labour available matches the need.

Mr. De la Beré: Notwithstanding the information not being available, does not the right hon. Gentleman know in his heart of hearts that the labour is not coming forward? Why not do something now?

Mr. Williams: The figures which I gave were strictly accurate.

Mr. De la Beré: It is no good waiting on events.

Wool

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government proposes to take any action as a result of the Elliot Report on the marketing of British wool; and whether the 1946 home wool clip will be marketed under the same terms and conditions as the 1945 home wool clip.

Mr. T. Williams: The report of the Elliot Committee has been published, and I am now awaiting the views of the organisations representing producers, when they have had time to study the report. In reply to the second part of the Question, the Government intend to requisition the 1946 home wool clip under similar conditions to the 1945 clip, and I hope to make a further announcement on this matter in the very near future.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether British wool producers are to be represented on the joint organisation set up by the Empire Wool Conference in the future.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir The directors of this organisation, whose functions relate


entirely to the disposal of Dominion wool, will be appointed by the Governments of the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: As the prices which the Dominions will take will have an effect on British prices, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that there should be some British representation on this Empire Board?

Mr. Williams: I said that the Government representative will be appointed by the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

Harvest. Camps (Soap)

Mr. William Adams: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, as the need for school harvest camps will still be great this year, he will take steps to ensure that an adequate supply of soap is available, particularly in the girls camps, to allow for a reasonable care of the hands of those who so laudably and usefully surrender their holiday time.

Mr. T. Williams: Yes, Sir; I hope to be able to do so in this special case.

Wages Regulation Acts (Private Gardeners)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he contemplates extending the provisions of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Acts to include private gardeners; or what steps he is taking to raise the wages of this latter class.

Mr. T. Williams: I have noted the point for consideration in connection with the Government's proposals to amend the Acts in other directions. As regards the latter part of the Question, I have no powers in regard to the wages of private gardeners.

Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these men are tied to their employment so long as there is a cottage attached to it, and are receiving only 50s.a week? Will he take some steps in the matter?

Mr. Williams: I am afraid that the only power which I possess is in regard to the Agricultural Wages Regulation Acts, which do not apply to private gardeners.

Market Garden Produce

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will in the interests of

the home producers, exercise a strict control over the importation of market garden produce.

Mr. T. Williams: Licences for the importation of market garden produce are issuable by the Import Licensing Department of the Board of Trade in consultation with my Department and the Ministry of Food. The interests of home producers are taken into account before the issue of licences is recommended.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Cannot the Minister tell us whether we are likely to get any of this very much needed market garden produce here at home, on British housewives' tables?

Mr. Williams: I should like my hon. Friend to tell me first of all where it is, and then I will tell my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food.

Mr. De la Beré: Why not wake up the Empire?

Cereals

Mr. James Hudson: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the doubling of barley cultivation during the war to nearly 2,000,060 acres, he proposes in the present food shortage to divert any part of the present cultivation of barley to that of other cereals.

Mr. T. Williams: As I informed the House on 5th February, the general shortage of cereals makes it imperative that farmers should sow as much grain as they can this spring. This applies especially to wheat, but, where the sowing of spring wheat is not practicable, we want more barley and oats.

Mr. Hudson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether in view of the tremendous increase in the barley production during the war, he in his Department will indicate some direction to the farmers about the growing of barley?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend will appreciate that barley is a first class dual crop, for human or animal food.

Mr. Hudson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the directions regarding this matter have come hitherto almost entirely from the brewers, who have offered larger prices for the production of barley?

Mr. Leslie Hale: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of land in this country. were growing wheat in 1945; and how many acres of land it is estimated will be growing wheat in 1946.

Mr. T. Williams: The acreage of wheat in England and Wales in 1945 was 2,180,000 acres. As spring sowing has hardly begun it is too early to estimate accurately the wheat acreage for 1946.

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will state the acreage of wheat sown last autumn in this country; and how the figures compare with the autumn of 1943.

Mr. T. Williams: I regret that, pending the tabulation of the results of the agricultural census of 4th December last, figures for the acreage of wheat sown last autumn are not yet available.

Germany

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give any information as to an official commission visiting Germany to examine the agricultural conditions in that country; what is its composition; and what interests its members represent.

Mr. T. Williams: I am not aware of any such commission, and perhaps the hon. Member will give particulars of what he has in mind.

Women's Land Army

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make the conditions of service in the W.L.A. more attractive in order to stop an exodus of female workers from the land at a time when the nation's food production requires stimulation.

Mr. T. Williams: Women's Land Army members already enjoy certain appreciable advantages over other women land workers, and I am afraid I cannot hold out hope of further relative improvements in their conditions of service.

Mr. Allighan: Is the Minister aware that the authorities of the Women's Land Army have announced that over 10,000 girls will be leaving the Service between now and the Spring sowing? Has he any proposals to make?

Mr. Williams: I can only hope that the 10,000 referred to will not necessarily leave the land, since even though they have the right to leave, should they wish, between now and the end of March, I

hope many of them will prefer to remain on the land for at least another year.

Prisoner-of-War Labour

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will, in consultation with the Secretary of State for War, secure a change in the conditions governing the employment of German prisoner-of-war labour in the neighbourhood of R.A.F. stations in view of the number of such stations in Norfolk and the need for prisoner-of-war labour on the sugar beet crop during the forthcoming season.

Mr. T. Williams: I am already in touch with the other Ministers concerned with a view to securing some relaxation in the direction mentioned by my hon. Friend.

War Executive Committees (Constitution)

Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture when it is proposed to revise the constitution of the W.A.E.Cs. so as to make them democratic and representative bodies.

Mr. T. Williams: The permanent reconstitution of county war agricultural executive committees must await the passing of permanent legislation, but I am in consultation with the organisations representative of land owners, farmers and workers on the subject of an interim re-constitution under existing powers. I cannot at present say when that will take place.

Welsh Department of Agriculture

71. Squadron-Leader Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the precise status and functions of the Welsh Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; what administrative responsibilities are delegated to the Welsh Department; and what are the channels of communication between the head of the Welsh Department and the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. T. Williams: The Welsh Department is responsible for advising on the Welsh aspects of the formulation and administration of the Ministry's policy generally, and in particular for administering in Wales the Ministry's policy in regard to livestock improvement, education and advisory matters, and land management (including the constitution and functions of county agricultural executive committees in Wales). For this


purpose the Welsh Secretary is kept in close touch with the work of the Department generally, and the heads of the various divisions of the Ministry are under instruction to consult him at the appropriate stage to ensure that any particular Welsh aspect of policy with which they are dealing is taken into consideration before a final decision is reached. This consultation is facilitated by the Welsh Secretary's frequent visits to headquarters and by a direct telephone line and a teleprinter service. The Welsh Secretary, who ranks as an Assistant Secretary of the Ministry, is directly responsible to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry for the general conduct of the work of his Department, and through him has the right of access to the Minister.

National Advisory Service

Lady Noel-Buxton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, as the National Agricultural Advisory Service is open to both sexes, whether women officers of his Department, or other suitably qualified women, will be consulted in the short listing of applicants, and will sit on the select committees set up to interview candidates.

Mr. T. Williams: The selection of candidates for this service is being conducted by the Civil Service Commissioners in association with my Department. The preliminary examination of the applications will be carried out by suitably qualified persons, and the Selection Boards will, if possible, always include a woman member when women candidates are interviewed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES (EIRE CITIZENS)

Professor Savory: asked the Under secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the arrest, as deserters, on their return to Eire, on leave or for release, of citizens of Eire who had been serving in the British Armed Forces on the ground that they had at some time or other belonged to the Eireann Armed Forces; and whether he has made a protest through the United Kingdom representative to the Government of Eire against these arrests, in view of the fact that these men are British subjects and Eire is a constituent part of the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Parker): Provision is made under Eire Military Law, as under that of other countries, that men who desert from the Defence Forces are liable to arrest and punishment. Deserters who joined the United Kingdom Forces and subsequently returned to Eire used to be dealt with under this provision, but the Eire Government later made an Emergency Powers order the effect of which is that such men are no longer liable to arrest and punishment on return to Eire.

Professor Savory: Will the hon. Gentleman state the date of that Emergency Powers Order, and how many men serving in the British Forces were prosecuted as deserters before that Emergency Order came into force?

Mr. Parker: I am afraid not without Notice

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODS, NORTHWICH (RELIEF MEASURES)

Mr. John Foster: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health what aid is being given to the town of Northwich, Cheshire, where hundreds of people have been rendered homeless and destitute by the overflowing of the river Weaver.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): My right hon. Friend has asked for a report of the action taken by those locally responsible and he is in touch with the other Departments concerned. When fuller information is available he will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Foster: Would the Minister of Health act as a co-ordinating Department urgently as there is a great deal of distress there, and a great deal of destruction of private possessions and goods?

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir; the negotiations with the other Departments are going on. Mr. Charles Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman see that these negotiations are not so slow as Government negotiations usually are?

Mr. Key: I think there must have been a change since the time of the hon. Gentleman's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTIONS

Report from the Select Committee (with Minutes of Evidence and Appendices), brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 71]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question (6th February), "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Mr. James Griffiths.]

Question again proposed.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. Renton: When the original Beveridge Report was first brought to the notice of the men and women in the Forces all over the world, it had a wonderful effect upon their morale. The war had already lasted three years and many bitter struggles still lay ahead; but when the Report and the proposals were outlined to the men, it gave them something to hope for; it made them feel that there was something further for which to win the war and many of them said, "This will save a lot of worry." We therefore owe it to them to ensure that this Bill is the best Bill we can possibly enact, and to see that it is one which will work.
Many of us also remember that from time to time during the war men would come to us and say, "When this is all over, I would like to have a job on my own; I would like to be my own master "—a very natural wish, because there are those who are temperamentally better suited to working on their own than under a contract of service. Since the war ended, it has been fairly apparent that it is not easy to become one's own master, for the way is not made smooth for those who wish to do so. The dice seem to be loaded against them; and I am sorry to have to say that in this Bill there is further evidence of discrimination against the self-employed person.
It seems to me that the proposals give him a bad bargain; and, from what the Parliamentary Secretary said in his winding-up speech on Thursday night, one may hope that the Government are also

beginning to be of that opinion. The Parliamentary Secretary made an alternative suggestion to that already contained in the Bill, in regard to sickness benefit of the self-employed person; and I have gone into the matter during the fortunate intervening space, but it still seems to me that he does not get a square deal. Careful scrutiny of the Actuary's Report reveals the fact that he would probably be getting quite as good a deal as the employed person, if his sickness benefit were to start after three days, as does that of the employed person, but on the rates of contribution originally in the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary said that in order to bring the self-employed person into line with the employed person, it would be necessary for the State to contribute another£1,000,000 a year, and the self-employed another 4½d. a week.
I suggest that, without any increase in the total cost to the State under this Bill, it would be possible to bring the two classes into line. In 1948 there will be 2,800,000 self-employed persons. At 4½d. each per week, their total contribution would amount to£2,730,000 per annum. Therefore, what has to be found is£1,000,000 plus££2,730,000, making£3,730,000 in all. I suggest that that amount, without adding to the total cost, can easily be found from the£94,000,000 which has been allocated to unemployment benefit. This large sum of£94,000,000 a year for unemployment is based on an assumption of 8½ percent. unemployed.
The Government Actuary estimates that in 1948 there will be 19,300,000 employed persons and 8½ per cent. of that is 1,640,500. In other words the Government are budgeting for and relying upon a figure of about 1,600,000 unemployed. That comes strangely after the promises of full employment which we heard during the Election. It seems peculiar that we are told at Election time that under Socialism there will be full employment, whereas under Socialist majority rule, there will be 1,600,000 unemployed at 26s. a week. If the Government have faith in their own promises of full employment, and if they have the courage of their convictions, they could quite easily assume that there will be only 8 per cent. unemployment If we assume only 8 per cent., instead of8½ per cent., we find there will be about£5,000,000 to spare out of the£94,000,000 at present


allotted for unemployment benefit, and that£5,000,000 will easily cover the£3,730,000 which is required to give the self-employed person a square deal on sickness benefit. That can quite easily be done without embarrassing the Government financially. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter.
There is another factor. If we are to ask the self-employed man to wait 24 days before he gets any sickness benefit, the most obvious result will be that he will go on working himself to death when he is really ill. There will be a grave temptation not to give up, and that will mean a possible loss of manpower to the country.
Moreover—although I confess this is going considerably beyond the scope of the scheme which the Government have in mind, it seems a necessary part of national insurance and of giving the self-employed person a square deal, and surely it is not beyond the wit of man, and certainly not beyond the wit of this Government, to conceive a voluntary scheme, whereby those self-employed persons to whom it is appropriate, should have some system of insurance against unemployment.
Many of us have been puzzled, including those who served on the Committee on the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, to find how this National Insurance Bill dovetails with that Measure. Perhaps our Welsh friends can help us, for it has been said that the Welsh have a flair for the improvement of the social conditions of less fortunate races, and the Minister may remember the Welshman's definition of a collision and an explosion. He said, "Well, in a collision, there you are; but in an explosion, well, where are you?" I say to the Minister, ''Under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, there you are,45 bob a week; under this Bill 26 bob a week." But, when we attempt to combine the two, "Well, where are you? "We would be grateful if some clarification could be given, when the Debate is being wound up, and, if possible, a Clause inserted in the Bill at a later stage for he removal of this doubt.
On the approved society question, I would remind the House of Sir William Beveridge's original scheme, in which

there were three indispensable partners in the main object of achieving social insurance. They are compulsory insurance, national assistance and voluntary insurance. He said that these three partners are indispensable. Until the Government conceive some other plan, which so far they have not put before the public, the friendly societies and industrial life assurance societies—especially the latter—will have to continue their voluntary business. Both types of approved society have submitted workable, practical, suggestions for their use as agents of the Government in the operation of the national insurance scheme. I was greatly surprised to hear the Minister—for whom many of us on this side of the House have far more admiration than we have for many of his colleagues—say that there was "a lot of tosh" talked about visiting in the homes. Those of us who represent Fenland districts, know perfectly well that the visits of agents of both friendly societies and industrial life assurance societies mean a great deal to insured people in those remote parts; and when those visits cease, there will be removed from the people an amenity and a service to which they have become accustomed and to which they are entitled. If the Minister is not going to continue that service, I suggest that he must find something quite as good.
It is the pride of our Parliamentary democracy that year by year, whichever Government is in power, we in this House-do our best to see that each successive generation of British men and women get a better chance in life than did their parents. There is nothing new about this progress; but from hon. Members opposite one would gain the impression that we had never been a great country up to now. We know perfectly well that our greatness started with the Welsh Tudors and has continued ever since. Indeed, it is up to the Government and hon. Members opposite to decide whether or not it is to continue. Let us bear in mind that here in this National Insurance Bill, and on this great occasion, we have an opportunity of joining together in furthering that great cause of advancing the social progress of the British people.

3.31 p.m.

Mrs. Ayrton Gould: I was much interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), and as regards half of one of


his arguments I would like to support him. I refer to half of his first argument on the question of the self-employed person. I confess that I did not follow his figures—I am sure it is my fault but I need to see figures on paper in order to take them in. I ask the Minister to consider one kind of self-employed person. In my view, self-employed persons fall into two categories. There is the category of the man who has a small business, probably in conjunction with his wife—a tobacconist, a greengrocer, or whatever it may be. If he falls ill, it is very hard lines on his wife. She has to work extremely hard, but the fact remains that she manages to nurse her husband and carry on the business, and for the two or three weeks in which he may be ill there is no loss of income. In those circumstances it seems to me that the 24 days' waiting period is fair. There is an entirely different category of self-employed person, that is the hawker, or the cobbler, or the jobbing gardener, or the window-cleaner. These men only have an income so long as they are actually working. When they fall ill, and cannot use their hands, there is no income coming into the house. I would ask the Minister to consider their position when the Bill goes into Committee.
I have been very interested in the speeches from the Opposition benches, because it seems to me that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on those benches have been torn between the desire, on the one hand, to make the public think that every measure of social security which has gone through has been furthered by them or their predecessors simply from the motive of the milk of human kindness, and on the other hand a fear that the country cannot afford a new measure of social security. I have been looking through the Debates and I have found that any time any Measure of this kind has been brought forward, the country has never been able to afford it. I have a feeling that the view of many of the Members on the Opposition benches is still that the country cannot afford it. In replying to the Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) said:
I must honestly confess we do see the red light in regard to the nation's finances "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th Feb. 1946; Vol. 418. c I774.]
I fancy that that is the 1946 streamlined way of saying that the country cannot

afford it That has happened every time since the original Old Age Pensions Measure, which has a most interesting history. I find that there had been an agitation for old age pensions for several years, largely fostered—I know the Opposition will not agree with this—by the handful of Labour Members then in the House. There was also a great agitation in the country. In January, 1908, the question of old age pensions was mentioned in the King's Speech, but was greeted with such a storm of cries of "The country cannot afford it," stated in every conceivable way, that it was dropped and looked like being shelved altogether. A curious thing happened. In April of that year the late Prime Minister, the present right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) who was then a Member of the Liberal Cabinet, was appointed President of the Board of Trade. He fought a by-election in North-West Manchester and was defeated.
The question of old age pensions was very much to the fore in that contest. The right hon. Gentleman then went on to Dundee and there things did not seem to be going very well with him by all accounts. On 7th May, contrary to the usual practice, the Prime Minister introduced the Budget, and in it provision was made for old age pensions at 5s. a week. A few days later, the President of the Board of Trade was returned for Dundee. I have always wondered, in my simple way, whether there could possibly be any connection between those two events.
At last we have a Government in power that can discriminate between what the country can afford, and what it cannot afford. It is not social insurance that the country cannot afford. What the country cannot afford is what I saw happening in the distressed areas in the early thirties. The country cannot afford what I saw, for instance, in one village in South Wales when I visited many houses. In every house to which I went, I was told that "mother was ill," so the eldest daughter was at home. Mother was ill because she was starved in trying to feed her children. That is what the country cannot afford. The country cannot afford another thing I saw there. A labour local council had provided jobs on the road to put men in benefit, and one morning I saw five men faint from sickness and malnutrition in the first hour of work of a new day. The country cannot afford that.
Nor can the country afford to have tuberculosis among children rising at the rate it did in the early thirties. That is the sort of thing that the country cannot afford, and which our Government realise the country cannot afford.
There are one or two other points 1 should like the Minister to consider. One matter about which I am very much concerned is the position of two classes of women who are working side by side in gainful occupation. For instance, in Lancashire, it happens that married women work alongside spinsters throughout their normal adult life. Under this Measure the anomalous position will arise that a childless married woman who has been in gainful occupation all her adult life, and who loses her husband when she is in the early fifties, can, after the period which I think she should have, of 13 weeks at 36s. a week, retire, if she likes, on 26s. a week and still do a little work to earn an extra£1 a week, and can be pensioned for the rest of her life. An unmarried woman, working side by side with her, unless she is so ill as to be incapable of work and is invalided out, so to speak, has to go on until the age of 60 before she can get a similar pension.
On the whole, it is probably true that married women who are in gainful occupation have an easier life than the unmarried women. If they, and their husbands, are working, they can far more easily afford to take a day or two off when they are not feeling up to the mark. The unmarried woman cannot afford to do that. The result in many cases is that childless women—and I want to emphasise this point because 1 think it is entirely different when a married woman has been in her home all her life and has not been in industry—childless widows, who have been in gainful occupation all their adult life, are likely to be more healthy and more fit, no less fit than their unmarried sisters beside them, to go on working. It does seem to me it is going to be terribly hard for the more delicate though not actually sick unmarried woman, and I do ask the Minister to consider that question.
There is one other thing I want him to look at and that is to consider, at any rate in the transitional period, the exemption rate of£75 a year. That does not seem to me to be high enough, at any rate during the transitional period.
I had a letter from my constituency from two sisters aged 57 and 59. Neither of them is fit to work, though they are not ill. They have never worked, and they would not know how to start at their age. These two ladies have a joint income of£164 a year which works out at£3 3s. 6d. a week. If they are not exempted, they will have to pay, between them, into the fund 7s. 2d. a week, and they will have to do that for 10 years before they can get any retirement pension. They will have to live during that time, if Income Tax remains the same, on a combined income of£2 14s. 6d. a week.
I do not suppose there are a great many similar cases, but I do feel that such cases are terribly hard, and I suggest that the exemption limit should be put up to£100. a year instead of the present£75 a year. I suppose nobody in this House could honestly say that during the last seven years they have never known the feeling of stark fear. What a great many people do not realise is that millions of workers in our country have gone through the whole of their lives with stark fear waiting round the corner, fear of losing their homes, their jobs, fear of being ill, and fear of dying and leaving their families to starve. When this Bill is in full operation as an Act of Parliament, that grim, stark fear, hitherto always waiting round the corner for millions of our workers, will have been abolished. That is why I regard this Measure as one of the greatest steps towards human progress that this country has ever seen.

3.44 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) in detail, but I hope that in the course of my speech, which I will make as brief as possible, I shall be able to answer some of her questions. I do ask the House to believe that my purpose in opposing and criticising these proposals is just as honourable as the purpose of those who support them. I seek the welfare of our people as ardently as those who support these proposals.
The test of any scheme is "Will it work?" I say that this scheme is unworkable and that it will break down financially and administratively. It is against the natural law, and there are so many unknown factors in the proposals


that the Government have no right to gamble on them and to raise hopes which cannot be fulfilled. The Actuary's Report, Members will find, deals with unknown quantities and unknown factors. In order to be brief, I confine myself to one glaring, typical example. At the bottom of page 6 in the Actuary's Report reference is made to the rate of unemployment, and the Government Actuary says that it is based on a "notional basis "of 8½ percent. I ask the House to mark these words,
… on the instructions of the Government.
These instructions must be purely theoretical. I do not know, but it seems to me an extraordinary thing that the Government should be bold enough to give the Government Actuary, who, in my opinion, should be independent, those instructions. If that notional figure exceeds 8½ per cent., then the whole scheme breaks down. One could not run a village shop on a notional figure. It is an unwarrantable gamble and I see in this Bill a determination of the Government to enact their theories and their slogans without regard to the consequences. I say this Bill is a Bill to organise poverty and disaster.
All power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely
This Bill gives the people a false sense of security. It gives them the idea they can get something for nothing— that the State, or somebody else, can keep them if necessary from the womb to the tomb. There is a law, a natural law, older and more sacred than human-made enactments. If any man, or any Government, breaks that law, the law will break him, and it says this, "If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat" [Interruption] I am only supporting the appeal which has been made from the Government Front Bench during the last two or three weeks. I say this scheme will break down financially unless there is adequate domestic production behind our paper money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told us the other day that, compared with 1900, the purchasing power of the paper pound today—I think this is about three months ago— is only 8s. and unless our people, all of us, are prepared to work and produce goods at the right price that piece of paper will go down and down in purchasing power, and if the matter is car

ried to its logical conclusion the time will come when all that the Government can give the people will be pieces of paper which they can neither eat nor wear.
What is the good of an old-age pension, or a benefit, when the money is valueless and there is nothing to buy in the shops? That is the position which we are rapidly approaching. The present Foreign Secretary, when he was Minister of Labour, is reported to have said on 4th April, 1944:
I, as an old trade union official, do not want£ 10 a week if I can buy only£2 of stuff with it. I would rather have£ 5 with which I could buy£5 worth of stuff.
That is the argument I am trying to support. Whatever theories may be enacted, the law of supply and demand will always operate. This Bill will break down administratively because the Government inspectors, Government officials, are incapable of doing the voluntary work that has been done by the friendly societies and by the industrial assurance societies as humanely and as economically as those societies have done it. Even Sir William Beveridge opposed the extinction of the friendly societies. I wear in the lapel of my coat today, and I am proud to do it, my membership badge of the Oddfellows, and these three links stand for "Friendship, Love and Truth" I say that, in this Bill, these virtues are given in the opposite meaning. 
What is the Government proposing to do in case a man or woman cannot keep up with his or her contributions? I would ask the Government a further question. Are benefits to be paid to those who are on strike, or who indulge in voluntary absenteeism, or, in any other way, contravene the complicated provisions of this Bill? I tell the House, and I want to tell the people of this country, what will happen. I ask the people of this country to look at Clause 48. If this Clause is granted to the Government, it will give to them the same kind of power which Hitler demanded 25 years ago; that is State control, and State control can only be kept in being by force. Under Clauses 51 to 53, there are the penalties and means by which this Bill can be forcibly implemented. For six years, for 15 months of which we stood alone, we fought for liberty and freedom and to remove the shackles of State control from the distressed peoples of Europe. This Government, by this Bill, are beginning to


fasten similar shackles on the people of this country. I ask hon. Members of this House if they have read the remarks made by Mr. Justice Charles at Lincoln last week?
Now I turn to what I am afraid will be a rather dry topic. I want to give facts and figures showing what will have to be faced, with courage, by hon. Members of all parties. I want to give round figures for the last 36 years, during which we have fought two major wars. Thirty-six years ago, the National Debt was£ 661 millions; today it is£ 24,000 millions. Then the balance of trade was plus£ 207 millions; in 1938, it was minus£ 53 millions, which meant that we were£ 260 millions a year worse off. In 1946, it is estimated that this country is faced with a deficit of vital imports of food and raw materials of£ 750 millions; the American loan of£ 1,100 millions is not yet through the United States Congress, and I am told, unofficially, that the betting in America is six to four against it going through Congress. I want to know what the position will be if it does not go through. If it does go through, we shall be faced with a similar crisis to that of today, but with a further£ 1,100 million of debt tied round our necks. I quote from a speech made in London by the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary on 11th February, 1944. He said:
We have lost our overseas investments— pawned them, sold and depreciated them, and, after the war, we shall have to live on our annual production year by year.
I would add, after the words" annual production"—" at the right price." I now come to the figures of our social services.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will also come nearer to the Bill.

Sir W. Smithers: I want to give the background against which the Government are introducing this Bill, and I want to show how, in my opinion, it is not practicable. I have tried to get the figures. "The Times" on 6th February this year said:
No comprehensive financial survey of the measure now under discussion has been published.
Today, "The Times" prints a remarkable leading article about the financial issues of this Bill. On 2nd January this

year, I received a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in which he said:
I am not in a position to give you a complete estimate of public expenditure for the whole field covered by the annual Return which shows the total cost of public services.
Well, the Government are launching this tremendous revolutionary proposal, yet no one seems to know what the cost will be or how it is to be provided. I want to make a comparison. In 1910, the cost of social services was£63 millions. The latest estimate I can get—and it is the best I can do, and I know it is based on passed or envisaged Measures— appeared in HANSARD, in column 763 of 13th December last, in which the cost of social services was given at£575 millions. In column 68 of HANSARD of 24th January this year, it was stated that the stabilisation of food prices was costing£ 308 millions. This Bill is costing£ 452 millions. That is a total of round about£ 1,335 millions. In 1978, this Bill will cost£ 749 millions. Then, of course, there are other commitments which the Government must take into account. There are pensions for this war, the health proposals, the cost of the Army of Occupation, which was mentioned at Question Time today, the cost of our contributions to U.N.O., U.N.R.R.A. and the cost of family allowances. On the basis of my calculations—and I am open to correction if they are wrong—I feel that the cost of social services is getting near to the£1,500 millions a year mark, and that is not a task which this country can afford to undertake. It is a "Rake's Progress."
It does not matter where the money comes from— from the Treasury, the masters or the men—it has to be earned. The State is not a fairy godmother with a bottomless purse. All Government expenditure, all increases in wages, family allowances, strikes and voluntary absenteeism, and social services, must increase our cost of production and must impede or destroy our ability to compete in the markets of the world, and thus to secure our vital imports. I would point out to hon. Members that Britain is different from every other country in the world in that she is not, and cannot become self-supporting. We must in order to live, import, from one-third to one-half of our food and raw materials, and, to overcome that£ 750 million deficit this year, if the American loan is not granted, we have to export goods and services at


world competitive prices or we shall be faced with starvation. 
All this Socialist theory about social security at the present time is fantastic. The first and most vital job for this country is to earn next week's bread and butter. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, speaking of Germany— and I only heard this over the wireless last night— pointed out that Germany cannot pay her way unless the Germans can be fed and that there was a danger of epidemics. He might have addressed those words to the Government and people of this country. 
I now come to a question put by the hon. Lady the Member for North Hendon, and I answer it by quoting an extract from "A Word on the Future to British Socialists," issued by the Fabian Society. It is remarkable that a society which, in my opinion, has done so much harm to this country in the past—[Laughter]— hon. Members should wait to hear what the Society says—should have thought fit to write these words:
We depend, not only for the standards of living to which we have been accustomed, but for any standard that will keep us alive on a large and flourishing international commerce. It is a mere mirage to suppose that we could exist on our own foodstuffs and our own domestically produced raw materials. In the past we have paid for these and other imports with our exports. But even before the present war we were no longer doing this on a sufficient scale. We were living on capital. If there bad been no war, we could not have gone on in that way indefinitely, and the very possibility of our continuing to live in that way has disappeared.
I ask the Government to look for a moment at France under M. Gouin, and see what she is doing to meet a similar position. She is taking' drastic steps. She is self-supporting and we are not. We are living— and this Bill proves it—in a fool's paradise. Another fact I would like to put before the House is that the consumer always pays. He pays for our rates, rents, taxes and our social services. I would ask hon. Members to mark this carefully. The foreign consumer refuses to pay for our social services when the cost of those social services is added to the cost of our production, as it must be. These are my last words. The Government won this election by mass bribery, by making promises, and by holding out hopes, of which this Bill is evidence, of giving to the people of this country

material benefits which are incapable of fulfilment.
What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
The ignorance of his hearers is the chief weapon of the demagogue. We are commanded:
Seek ye first the Kingdom of God," 
and the things that matter. So long as any Government— and this Government especially— goes on putting the cart before the horse, disaster will surely follow. No Government can save the people. The people alone can save themselves if they are allowed to use freely their God-given talents. A prerequisite for a better world is better and more unselfish men and women, and you cannot make them by Acts of Parliament.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Smith (Hull, South-West):: When I first came to this House a few months ago, I made a mental resolve that I would not speak for the first 12 months if I could avoid it, because of the crowded rows of hon. Members eager to make their maiden speeches. I have been constrained to speak on this occasion for a number of reasons. First we have a kindly Minister, which fact encourages one. Then I believe hon. Members of the Opposition conceal their ferocity when-one seeks their indulgence for the first time, and finally I desire to make a comment or two chiefly because of the vast-importance of this Measure. I am happy to share the joy of the Minister, and I think one can say that most hon. Members— I might a moment ago have said all hon. Members, but the last speaker has made that rather difficult—join in giving a warm welcome to this most significant and comprehensive Measure.
I was also reassured when I heard the-other day the familiar voice of the right, hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law), who I am sorry is unable to be with us this afternoon. He took pride, I think justifiably, in the-helpful contribution which hon. Members, opposite have made to these proposals. It will be recalled that the Minister himself, and the Prime Minister, conceded that there had been a wide body of approval of this Measure. By general consent, the proposals of the White Paper have been improved on by the Minister. The proposals in the Bill are, in many respects, a considerable advance on the


proposals of the White Paper, and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington, after congratulating the Prime Minister on his good fortune in producing this Measure, went on in a most inexplicable way to say that this was the most reactionary Government of modern times. I confess I could not gather the point of that observation or the consistency of that sentiment. The right hon. Gentleman accused Government spokesmen and the Leader of the Liberal Party of a desire to go back, I think, to 1911. A moment afterwards he was charging this Government with going back to the "naughty nineties".
Since there is such a wide volume of support for the general proposals in the Bill, which, as I say, are regarded as an advance on those introduced in the White Paper, I think I might venture a few observations on one or two aspects on which there seems to be some difference of opinion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) put forward for consideration the suggestion that, in order to obtain a lower payment, we might consider a lower pension, and, in what was perilously near an argument for a reduction in the pensions—although, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, it must be admitted that he disclaimed any such intention—he said that only one-third of the present pensioners have applied for supplementary pensions. He reached the conclusion that because only one-third had so applied, there was a case for considering whether the amount proposed by the Government as adequate for that one-third was, therefore unnecessarily generous for the two-thirds who did not so apply.
I would make two observations on that point. Many persons in receipt of a pension and who did not apply for the supplementary pension, refrained from applying because of their horror of all that is involved in the means test, and because of the burden that would be placed on sons and daughters who had family responsibilities of their own. Because of that fact, many sons and daughters made contributions in aid of their parents, which they could ill afford to make, depriving their own families of essential things in order to do what they could for their old folk, rather than have those old folk submitted to the means

test which they dread so much. That accounts for the fact that no more than one-third of the pensioners applied for a supplementary pension. I could quote case after case of people who have suffered acute privation rather than make an appeal for a supplementary pension, and no hon. Member on the other side could rebuke any person who took that attitude. The right hon. Gentleman the member for Saffron Walden stated that this was one piece of evidence for his contention that we were, perhaps, overweighting the advantages of this Measure on the side of the aged as against the young. Were he present now, I would assure him that he will not find, on the part of any section of the young and vigorous who are making those contributions for the support of their own parents, any objection to this so-called generosity towards the aged portion of our population. They are proud that the Government are doing that, and they support the proposals as being, not over generous but the barest minimum that can be justified. 
What is the overriding merit of this Bill? I submit that it is that it treats the whole community as one family, and establishes, more than has ever been done before, the principle that we are "members one of another" The hon. Member. for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) probably would not understand what is meant "members one of another" This scheme is based on human need— on our needs as human beings and citizens—but while it is based on need, it is not based on means. I think that is as it should be. It is a Measure not of social assistance, but of social insurance, with three parties to the contract— the employer, the employee and the State. There is one exception to this universality to which I wish to draw attention, and to which reference has been made. I will not stress it unduly because of the very fine gesture made by the Parliamentary Secretary in his speech the other evening. I refer to the self-employed person. Perhaps I may be pardoned for saying that I speak as one who has been self-employed from the age of eleven. I may cease to be regarded as self-employed now, but that is a matter which the Minister is considering. It has been stated on this side that the 2,500,000 or so who are included in the category "self-employed" are men and women


who, in the main, are economically no better situated than the majority of those in Class 1. I think that will be found from the White Paper. Although they have no better advantage economically, yet the proposal of the Government is to continue the disability of 24 days, because it was thought they might carry those earlier weeks of sickness. I suggest that comes perilously near to the introduction of a means test, and the Government accept that a means test is wholly obnoxious on this side of the House. Therefore, I congratulate the Minister and his colleague on expressing their willingness to consider anew this provision, and if the self-employed persons were prepared to pay an additional amount to consider how they would be brought into the Measure. 
Let me assure the Minister that there will be no objection on the part of the self-employed persons to paying the proper premium. They have never asked for any privilege that the rest of the community have not got, but they have asked that there should be no penalty and that they should not carry the penalty of 24 days. I have seen the testimony of important officials, including the general secretary of what is, perhaps, the largest association of retailers in this country. They have said that they are willing to meet the additional cost of 5d. or thereabouts, and I am happy to congratulate the Minister on the fact that he is now willing to consider the introduction of equality in a matter of benefits. I know there is a difficulty in administration, and perhaps the details are better considered at a later stage. It is, of course, clear that a self-employed person gets a doctor's certificate which will be just as trustworthy as that concerning any other person— all doctors' certificates are trustworthy— but when the employed person is sick there is, of course, a check that he is not at work and not receiving his wages. The Minister might consider whether he would wish to have a second check for the self-employed person, by which he would be asked to sign an undertaking to the effect that he would not engage in his normal occupation. One could not, of course, suggest that he should not be on or about his place of business, because in many cases his place of business is his home, but there will be many cases in which the moment illness commences income stops. If the self

employed window cleaner, or the man who repairs our boots, does not work we do not pay him. They are in the same category as the employed person whose income stops when he is sick.
I am sure the large numbers of self-employed persons in this country will accept this as a tremendous advance over the White Paper. We have advanced from the long period of 13 weeks proposed by Sir William Beveridge to four weeks. Now the Minister holds out the hope that we might abolish those four weeks and bring in those persons on a footing of equality. He will earn the gratitude and respect of a large body of traders in this country who are increasingly recognising that this policy of the Government means so much to them, not only in sickness but also in their businesses because they are helping to maintain a high level of expenditure. I would like to add a word about the self-employed person who is a voluntarily insured person at the moment. Unless the Minister had seen his way to accepting the suggestions offered to him the self-employed person would have been in a worse position than formerly, because under his voluntary insurance he is covered for three days and under this scheme he would have been so much worse by having to wait 24 days.
I am glad my first words in the House have been in support of so wide a proposal, touching the health, happiness and peace of mind of the great majority of our people. There must be acceptance of the basic fact, that we are members one of another, "that we cannot have real individual success, unless it is shared by the whole community, while the sickness and. privations of a few mean, ultimately, the deterioration of the whole race. The recognition of those things has been set forth here. With regard to the complaint which has come from Members on the other side of the great speed—the bewildering speed—with which the Government are doing things, one can only say that there comes from the ordinary people of this country not a cry to put the brake on, but a cry of "More power to their elbow."

4.22 p.m.

Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I find myself very fortunate indeed to have caught your eye on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, because to me


falls the privilege of conveying the congratulations of the House to the hon. Member for South Hull (Mr. Sydney Smith) on having made a most competent maiden speech. I could not detect a single trace of that nervousness which afflicts most of us on such an occasion, and indeed afflicts many of us on every subsequent occasion. I also detected a very pleasant sense of humour. I looked in vain in his speech for some clue to the hon. Member's constituency, for the hon. Member would have been entitled to seize a perfectly legitimate excuse for advertising his own constituency. However, I do not think he really needs to do that, because he has made such a very good speech that I am sure his constituents have every reason to congratulate themselves on having such a very competent representative here.
A member of the Scottish Bar was once addressing a full bench of five judges. The advocate had a rather distinctive accent and opened his remarks by saying, "M'Luds, I have three 'pints', "whereupon one of the judges leant forward and said, "Mr.So-and-So, I have to remind you that three pints are not very adequate for five thirsty judges. "I had five points at the beginning of this Debate, but by a process of elimination I have now only two left, which is all to the good because there is not very much time, and even those two points have already been touched on. My only reason for intervening now is that I want to elaborate them a little, and also because the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply the other day did not deal with either of them.
The first point is this. If the National Health Insurance scheme is successful— and I am sure everybody hopes it will be—one of the effects of the benefits it is proposed to introduce will be that as time goes on, there will be fewer and fewer people applying for relief by the public assistance authorities. It is hardly to be expected that the need for relief will vanish completely, but beyond question there will be fewer and fewer applications for relief from the public assistance authorities as time goes on. That means this, slowly but surely the work of the present social service officers is going to be diminished. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) who raised this point gave, I think, as a very fair estimate that to the

extent of about 70 per cent. the work of these officers will diminish and consequently they will become redundant. The estimate was that about 5,000 or 6,000 social service officers are going to be thrown out of work. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), who is not here now, I thought attacked the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow rather unfairly, and accused him of raising a purely Committee point, because it was only, as he said, a matter of machinery. I did not agree with him at all. I cannot agree that where the livelihood of 5,000 men is at stake, it is not an issue which ought to be raised on the Second Reading of the Bill. I think this a very appropriate stage at which to raise that point, and I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary did not deal with it.
That being so, it is rather surprising, I think, that the Bill contains no provision whatever for dealing with these men who are undoubtedly going to be displaced. Many of them are going to lose their livelihood, and if they do not lose their livelihood they are going to lose a large part of their work.' The Bill, quite rightly, makes provision for the displaced officials of approved societies. I want to know why no similar provision has been made for the case of these social service officers who arc going to lose their jobs I do not think the Minister can really take refuge in the excuse that the Bill does not specifically transfer any of these duties from the local government authorities. Nevertheless, the inevitable consequence of this Bill is that these duties are going to be transferred, and the duties of the social service officers are going to he progressively diminished. I do not think the Minister can take refuge either in the excuse that these social service officers are employed by the local government authorities, and therefore it is no business of his what becomes of them. The plain fact is, these men are going to lose their jobs because of action taken in the House as the result of legislation. I do think the Government ought to accept full responsibility for that and do something about it.
I do not think the Minister can argue either that, although the Government have an obligation, and have recognised it, to the officials of approved societies on the ground that they are going to liquidate them completely, they can then turn


round and say that because these social service officers are not being, so to speak, liquidated but merely subjected to a sort of "death by a thousand cuts"—salary or otherwise—they can therefore divest themselves of their responsibility to such officers. I think it has been the invariable practice, where officials are displaced because of legislation, that specific provision is made for them. I quote the Local Government Act, 1929, the Old Age and Widows Pensions Act, 1940—and there are a lot more that will occur to hon. Members. Another thing that puzzles me is this. Why are these social service officers who are doomed to become redundant not being invited to apply for jobs under the Ministry? By common consent, these are very capable, very experienced men, and admirably suited, by their training, for the kind of work they would have to carry out under this Bill when it becomes an Act. They have had training in administering relief, doing social welfare work of all kinds, and running advice bureaux. All those things ought to be invaluable to the Minister in carrying out what he proposes to do. I understand that recruitment began as long ago as November, and that civil servants and officials of the friendly societies have been asked to apply for posts. Why have these social service officers, whose welfare is directly affected by the scheme, not been asked to apply? What makes it worse is that apparently the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor gave a very definite pledge that there would be either compensation or transfer for these displaced social service officers. I know the right hon. Gentleman is not bound by what his predecessor said, but it seems to me that it was reasonable and justifiable, and I think the pledge ought to be honoured.
And what about the younger members of the staffs of social service offices who are now in the Forces? Their future does not seem to be a very bright one. Why are they not being asked to apply for transfer? I think they ought to have been asked before anybody else of similar age and experience. I am told that some of them have applied, but their applications have not been entertained. That is all wrong. It is most unsatisfactory, and I hope the Minister will look into it. An injustice is being done which need not be done, and I hope the right

hon. Gentleman will do something about it.
The only other point with which 1 have to deal concerns share fishermen and the uncertainty of their position under this Bill. There has always been a difficulty about fitting these men into insurance schemes, and that difficulty arises from the somewhat unusual arrangement under which these men organise and manage their industry. Successive Ministers of Health have been inclined to take the view that because share fishermen do not operate under a contract of employment, the usual relationship that exists between employer and employed does not in their case apply, and that, therefore, these men could not be included in any definition of employed persons under the various Acts. This problem first came to light when widows,' orphans' and old age pensions were introduced. It fame up in a more acute form during the Second Reading of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936. On the occasion of that Second Reading their position was very thoroughly discussed in the House, on all sides of which a great deal of sympathy was expressed. Ultimately, with the good will of everyone, a way round the difficulty was found, and share fishermen were included under a special arrangement whereby their contributions could be charged against the boat, the owner, owning manager or manager of the boat being deemed to be the employer for the purposes of the Act.
It strikes me that that is a sensible and practical way round the difficulty. It recognised the fact that, though share fishermen are not in receipt of a basic wage, they do operate under a sort of piece rate system. That is the way the men themselves regard it; each man is, in fact, employed by the rest of the crew. In that way their position was made secure in regard to widows', orphans' and old age pensions and National Health Insurance. The question came up again on the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, which was before the House not very long ago. Once more we found that these men were excluded from the Bill as it was presented to us. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) and I put down some Amendments in Committee, and the Minister the Parliamentary Secretary and their advisers were all extremely


sympathetic. Again, by the good will of all concerned, these men were brought within the Bill, so that now, like any other working men, they enjoy the benefits of insurance against accidents which may occur in the course of their occupation. I really thought that that would settle the matter once and for all as regards share fishermen and national insurance, but I and other hon. Members who take an interest in their welfare were very surprised, when this Bill was produced, that once again there appears to be no specific provision for their inclusion as employed persons.
The case for the including of share fishermen in schemes of national insurance is an absolutely overwhelming one. The Parliamentary Secretary himself said, in Committee on the Industrial Injuries Bill, that from the normal acceptance of the term "workmen "they ought to be included. If they ought to be included in that Bill, they ought to be included in every Bill of the same kind. Theirs is an unsheltered industry if ever there was one. In normal times, taking one year with another, the average wage of the share fisherman was well below that of the sheltered industries They earn very little more than enough to keep their homes going and their boats and gear in good condition. They lead a life of very hard work, with long hours, and they are constantly exposed to the wind and sea. From time to time gales interfere with their earnings and sometimes cause the loss of their boats, or even of their lives. It is impossible for most of them to make any provision from their own resources against unemployment or old age, and their only hope lies in schemes of this sort.
They are a very bold and hardy race of men, very God-fearing men, proud in spirit and independent. I remember that once I was on one of their boats on a day of rather bad weather, and I had had a few buckets of water down my neck. Feeling very uncomfortable, I said to one of the men, "What makes you go on with a job like this? "I got the pithy reply, "Need makes the naked man run." You cannot break the spirit of men like that. They would be the last people on earth to want me, or anyone else, to express a lot of sympathy with them in public. They have chosen a hard and uncomfortable way of life, but

they never complain about it. I am not asking for any special favour for them, I am merely asking the right hon. Gentleman to recognise them as employed persons within the meaning of this Bill. I am sure their case commands the sympathy of everybody in this House, and I am certain that my appeal will not fall on deaf ears as far as the Minister is concerned.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Moyle: I have listened with very great interest to this Second Reading Debate and I am glad to find such unanimity in the House on this occasion. It is very interesting to reflect on the development of the acceptance by the State of duties which were formerly shouldered by the individual. In the realm of social insurance a beginning was made 100 years ago, with the development of factory legislation designed to ensure certain conditions of hygiene, safety and so on in factories. Later came the development of industrial legislation to ensure an irreducible minimum in rates of pay, together with a certain legal limitation of hours. Last year but one there was the Education Act, and today we have, presented to us by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for National Insurance, this epoch-making Bill. I think it can be said in truth that when, together with this Bill, we have the Health Bill to be later introduced by the Minister of Health, we shall have reached the stage when the State has acquired full stature in recognising the physical right of the citizen to life and health and subsistence, and, in the education sphere, the citizen's mental and moral right to the development of intelligence and character. Therefore, I do not think that whatever may be said to the contrary by the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) we need despair about the capacity of this country to make good its promises. It is amazing what we can do with the national economy when we accept the simple Christian principle of bearing one another's burdens.
Against the background of strong support of this Bill I want to make two points. The first is by way of re-affirming the excellent plea put up by the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) in support of the claim that local government officers, including servants, who are affected by this


Bill, should be compensated by the Government for the repercussions which will flow from this Bill and materially affect them. When 1 looked at Clause 66 of this Bill, I must confess, I was dismayed. It is a Clause which does not come up to the standards set by previous Governments. It does not come up to the standard set even by the Lord President of the Council when he drafted the London Passenger Transport Bill, in which a reasoned Clause was included to ensure compensation for those employees or displaced persons who were affected, either by redundancy or a reduction of status: loss of earnings and reasonable compensation was paid.
In Clause 66 there is no mention whatsoever of the local government personnel who are affected by this Bill. No provision is made for the transfer of those people competent to undertake the functions that will be undertaken by employees under the State; nor is there, as far as I can see, any provision made whatsoever for compensation in those cases where the employee is either displaced or suffers in any way loss of remuneration, emoluments and so forth. The facts are that there are, I believe, something like 600 principal officers involved, together with a personnel of about 10,000 officers and servants who are now engaged in the public assistance and social welfare departments of the local authorities throughout the country; and who will either be declared redundant, or who will be given new employment, probably by the local authorities, which may involve, very definitely, a loss of status and earnings. I ask my right hon. Friend to have a look at this Clause again. If he will do so he will carry with him not only the support of the trades unions and staff organisations concerned, but the whole of the local authority organisations.
I ask him to do two things—first, to accept responsibility for the transfer of the personnel concerned from the social and public assistance departments of local authorities, provided always that they are competent to do whatever may be assigned to them on transfer; and secondly, in the event of those transfers not being effected, to give them compensation rights not less favourable than those embodied in previous legislation. I refer, for example, to the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933, and the Local Government Act, 1929, and so on. I ask the Minister to be good enough to have

a look at this Clause, and I hope that he will do so and place this matter beyond any doubt.
The second point I want to raise is this question of relating superannuable employees to the Bill. I refer particularly to. employees who come within the scope of statutory superannuation legislation, such as the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1937, under which employees are, as a condition of their employment, called upon to pay superannuation contributions. Take, for example, county council workers. Some of those within the scope of the 1937 Act only receive, unfortunately, not more than 70s. a week. They pay superannuation of 3s. 6d. a week, or 5 per cent. of their earnings. They will be called upon, under this Bill, to pay 4s. 8d. That as far as I can see, is something like 8s. 2d. a week. When the Minister introduced this Bill I gathered, from the statement he made, that he regarded it as a matter for the local authorities to arrange. He may have been given legal advice in that direction. I do not know. But I doubt whether that will be a satisfactory way out.
Why not do in this Bill what was done in respect of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1936, in which. an enabling Section was put which enabled local authorities, by procedure laid down in that Section, in conjunction with the workmen concerned, to exercise the right to except from their earnings anything from 15s. to£1 a week, on which no pension contributions were paid, and thus contribute to what is called, technically, a modified pensions scheme; and, at the same time, could take at 65 a pension of 10s. a week under the Contributory Pensions Act? Unless the Minister puts that enabling Clause into the Bill, it appears to me that there will not be any tidy administration as far as the Superannuation Acts are concerned. I cannot see how, otherwise, it can be done, and I think it would be far better if the Minister could see his way during Committee stage, at least to include an enabling Clause, so that insofar as the Act of 1937, the Teachers Superannuation Act, and the Asylum Officers Superannuation Act are concerned, all public authorities can pursue the same kind of procedure; so that we can have general uniformity in linking this Bill with the superannuation Acts to which I have referred.
In so doing, he will command the general assent of the local government service, both on the question of compensation—which I have endeavoured to advance, however imperfectly—and in trying to seek to secure some uniform procedure for direction to local authorities, which will enable them to link up both the Superannuation Acts and this great Bill in a tidy, uniform way. I congratulate the Minister upon this Bill, and I sincerely hope that by the time it has passed through the Committee stage he will have an almost perfect Bill embodied in an Act of Parliament.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: Two different bodies of constituents have asked me to bring before the House the questions of self-employed persons and of the friendly societies. I will do so very briefly, because my real reason in rising is to say a word about the finances under the Bill. First, with regard to the self-employed person, we are grateful for the concession made on Thursday by the Parliamentary Secretary, but not quite so grateful, perhaps, as we ought to be, because, after all, we have heard it said that this is a Measure of insurance, and we must all share alike. If that be so, it does not appear to me to be at all defensible, logically, to discriminate between different classes of compulsorily insured persons. There is no logical reason why the self-employed person should not be on the same footing as everybody else. Once one starts to discriminate between classes, there is no logical end to it. In regard to friendly societies, the administrative advantage of using them as agents was very clearly shown in the speech of the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). For my part, when I consider the definite and explicit pledges given by the Labour Party and by a great many Members of this House, that is for me an ample and sufficient argument that "a gentleman" is expected to keep his word. If, in consequence of giving it, he becomes a right hon. Gentleman of this House, I feel that his obligation is not in any way diminished.
I want to say a word about the foundation of this Bill, which must be sound if we are to build anything like a super

structure upon it. 1 refer to finance. I wish to speak about page 16 of the Report by the Government Actuary, from which it will appear, in Table VIII, that there will be a total binding burden on the Exchequer in 1948 of about£175 million which will rise in 30 years to£452 million. That is a period which is a long way off, but in this Debate many speakers have ranged back 30, and even 40 years, so I think 30 years is not too long a period in which to look forward in order to see that we are putting up a sound building and not a jerry-built one. The burden on the Exchequer of£175 million rising in 30 years to£452 million is in itself alarming. It becomes worse when one considers that this Bill is in effect, as far as retirement pensions are concerned, a method of diverting purchasing power and income from the earning section of the community to that section which, owing to old age, is no longer able to earn. The very fact that the burden will become so much greater is, in itself, an indication that the proportion between the two is becoming very different.
As far as I can ascertain from the figures which I have, it will appear that under the Bill, in 1948, taking the population from 15 years of age to death, and dividing it into groups, one below 65 and the other over 65, that one person in eight will be over 65. Thirty years later, one person in five will be over 65, and the burden thrown upon the working section of the population will be very great indeed. Is there any way out? Of course, raising contributions, cutting benefits, and so on. But may I mention a local case which we had, some 20 years ago, in Birmingham. We had had a pension scheme for our non-manual employees for some years, and we wanted to provide an adequate pension for them. We found, in 1925, if we went on as we were doing, paying on a cash basis, that by 1955 we should be faced with a 3s. rate to put the matter right. Accordingly, we floated a fund, so computed that a 6d. rate added to the employees' contributions would maintain the fund solvent. But the fund was already insolvent on account of the people already in benefit under the scheme, and, therefore, we arranged to pay£115,000 a year for 40 years to make the fund solvent, with a result, that with a local rate of is., we have already, in 20 years very nearly


made the fund solvent, and we contemplate increasing the burdens on the fund for which there is ample provision.
The only sound way to deal with the actuarial problem confronted us—I have taken actuarial advice on the point—is to fund a liability. As to the amount required, one cannot speak with precision, but I think that probably a sum of£280 million to£300 million per annum from now onwards would put the fund right and maintain it in perpetuity. If we say that we cannot afford this; much less will people 30 years hence be able to afford to pay away£450 million with a smaller working population pro rata. If the Minister is not prepared to face this issue squarely, and provide for a fund and payments into it now and henceforth of an amount approximately of that magnitude, I say that this scheme is financially unsound and eventually doomed to failure. Apparently some slight recognition of actuarial danger does appear in the Bill, because there are provisions for rising contributions up to,.I think, the year 1955, but these are totally inadequate. They do not deal with the real danger confronting the scheme and I hope very earnestly that the Minister will deal at once, and seriously, with this problem. It would be a terrible thing to carry through a scheme of social insurance based on unsound foundations, and to hold out hopes now to our middle aged people which, when they reach old age, will not be realised and will cause them great disappointment.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I desire to take the time of the House for a very few moments indeed. In the first place may I add my congratulations to those which already have been given to the Minister upon this Bill? I think 'he has described it as an epoch in the history of this nation, and I do not think that is an exaggeration, because, in substance, the position is this, that social security, which hitherto has been a charity, is now for the first time recognised in the country as a right. That means a vast difference not only in freedom from the fear of want, but also in the material prosperity of the nation.
The hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. Roberts) raised a rather interesting point, the question of the actuarial danger in the scheme. Of course there is a danger

in the scheme, but I am reminded of a story about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) which may be appropriate. The right hon. Member was a subaltern in the last war and was taking certain people round the trenches. A shell dropped rather near some of these very important persons and one of them said to him, "Aren't we in rather a dangerous position? Isn't it rather dangerous? "The right hon. Gentleman said in reply, 'This is rather a dangerous war." When my hon. Friend says there is actuarial danger I say we are living in a dangerous world, a world in which there are inevitably dangers and a world in which it is not possible with complete accuracy to forecast what is going to happen in 20 or 30 years time. We have based and the Minister bases his calculations on what is going to happen upon the assumption that the productive resources of this country—as I think it can reasonably be anticipated—will be developed, and through the development of our economic industrial and financial resources we will be able to make provision for the older people.

Mr. Harold Roberts: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but does he suggest that this is a gamble and not an insurance scheme?

Mr. J. Silverman: I say it is not a gamble. It is based upon reasonable expectations, but reasonable expectations cannot take into account everything that is going to happen. For instance, supposing we have another great war—which I sincerely hope we shall not have— obviously our calculations are entirely out of joint I think, however, we can reasonably anticipate development in our productive resources and in our national wealth. After all, year by year industrial technique has improved. The capacity for production has improved and we hope it will continue to improve, and, therefore, the basis is not merely one of hope and faith but of reasonable expectation. Contingencies may possibly arise. As the right hon. Gentleman the Minister said, supposing for instance there were—and we do not anticipate that there will be— a great unemployment slump such as occurred during the years 1930 to 1934.this scheme would be unworkable, but it does not mean to say that one has got to prepare the worst, but rather for


what one can reasonably expect. I think that the Bill does provide for that and I think we can reasonably hope that in the year 1978 this country will be in a position to meet its liabilities. Therefore, in the broad sense the scheme is actuarially sound.
There are one or two points I should like to put to the Minister. In the first place I hope that in Committee he will find it possible to devote a little more attention to the wording and make it a little more simple and a little more capable of comprehension. I am not complaining, because the Bill was obviously produced in a certain amount of haste, and, after all, the urgent needs of the people come first before the question of polished and simple phraseology. But it is rather important that the people of this country should understand clearly what they are entitled to, and when we get a phrase like this in Clause 9(1) I begin to wonder:
References in this Act to a person's employer shall not be construed as including his employer in any employment other than one which is an employed contributor's employment (or in the case of a person who is not, but would if he were under pensionable age be, an insured person, an employment which would be an employed contributor's employment in his case if he were under that age).

Mr. Oliver Stanley: What does it mean?

Mr. J. Silverman: I am bound to. say that when I read it I gasped, and it occurred to me to wonder whether the simple layman would understand it. I suppose even the ordinary people of this country are entitled to read Statutes and are entitled to comprehend them. Whilst I fully understand that legal precision must come before simplicity of phrase, yet I do not believe it is beyond the ingenuity of the draftsmen to put the Bill in a more comprehensible form, and I do hope that when this Bill eventually reaches its final stages the Minister will find it possible if he cannot make the Bill more understandable to publish a White Paper outlining the details of the scheme. I hear the Parliamentary Secretary laugh at the idea of yet another White Paper, but this further White Paper will be rather more than what we have, had already, something which will be a social security charter telling' the people of this country just what are their rights and

what they are entitled to. I think that would be the crowning act in a successful scheme and is extremely essential. Many points have been raised with regard to this Bill and I do not want to repeat any of those already mentioned. One matter has been referred to me, which is one of the transitional problems of the scheme and concerns a person who is a voluntary contributor under existing schemes. He says, "I have entered into a contract for benefit. I am particularly insured in case I happen to die. I have insured my wife, and I want her to be covered not merely when she reaches the age of 50, but right away. I have paid premiums on the assumption that I shall be covered. Now I find that under the provisions of this Bill faith is being broken with me, and my wife will not be covered until she reaches the age of 50."

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren): I can put my hon. Friend's mind at rest at once. Every person married at the appointed day is covered, under the terms of the Bill, for a pension at any time, irrespective of age.

Mr. Silverman: I am very glad to be reassured by my hon. Friend. Such minor points of criticism do not detract from my general appreciation of the great services rendered to the country by the Minister in bringing forward this great Bill at this time.

5.12 p.m.

Commander Maitland: I rise to support this Bill in every possible way because we want to get it on to the Statute Book as soon as possible. Those of us who have been through this war realise that any danger in which we might have been was not nearly so important to us as the fear of what would happen to us when we got back home. That is a very good reason, apart from any other, why. we should realise the importance of this Measure. I would like to draw attention to the question—and this affects Members on all sides—of bringing in this great Bill without disturbing our economic life. Various Members have spoken today about its long-term effect on our economy, but personally I am not frightened of that, because I believe the Bill will prove of benefit to our economy, and not be a drag. But I do see that there is great danger in too rapid an introduction of


some of its provisions. It is axiomatic to say that insurance depends for its success on stability. We are placing a very heavy financial burden on the shoulders of employees, employers and taxpayers, and everything depends, as has been pointed out on many occasions, on production.
I was glad to hear the Minister say, in moving the Second Reading, that he intended to introduce the provisions gradually, in other words, to see that its impact would be felt gradually by the community. I hope the Lord Privy Seal may be able to tell us later, in a little more detail, how the introduction of the provisions of this Bill will be effected. I imagine they must be made against some form of relief. For instance, to start with, we have the gift of the family allowances this autumn, and I imagine that that gift will be used to offset some of the burden" of contributions.
But there is a large and important employed section of the community who will not feel that benefit, namely, young men and women who are not married and, even more so, young married people. So, I hope that when the Minister introduces the provisions gradually to the public he will make it possible for the country to bear the burden. I sincerely hope that when it comes to choosing taxes to be remitted the Purchase Tax will come to the mind of the Government. Unless this great problem of insurance, which has been such a great labour of Sir William Beveridge, and also Members of this House, is equated against a comparable increase in production, all our efforts will have been wasted.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Paton: I am very grateful for the opportunity to say a word or two about this great Measure as one of a small number on this side of the House who have been working and fighting for something like 40 years for reforms like this. It was with profound thankfulness that I sat in this House during the last month or two, and watched this Government, of which I am a supporter, bring to achievement some of the things for which I, and others like me, have been struggling for so long. I do not propose now to traverse arguments which have been put forward by so many Members about matters in the Bill which may be safely left to the Committee stage. Rather do I

want to use the short time during which I intend to speak, to deal with some aspects of the Bill which have been insufficiently ventilated in the Debate.
Underlying the discussion of this Measure has been the suggestion that its provisions would throw an overwhelming burden upon our national finance and resources. Today the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) brought this out clearly in his blunt and direct way. Until then this feeling was merely an underlying theme in other Members" speeches. For instance, it was expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) in a reference to "a red light." That is a view which is profoundly wrong, which will not bear examination, and one which is largely founded—at least, so far as the hon. Member for Orpington is concerned—on a misconception of the position. The hon. Member for Orpington spoke of the burden which the provisions of this Bill would throw on the National Exchequer. In 30 years time the maximum effect of the weighting of our population by our aged people, due to the declining birthrate in recent years, would begin to be felt. The hon. Member argued as if the total figure in the Actuary's Report, as to the actual cost of this Bill in 1978, meant the provision of new money. That, of course, is not the effect of the Bill, because in the Actuary's estimate for 1978 he is dealing not only with a period when we shall have to bear the maximum rate of aged population, but he is including also in the cost all the Measures already existing and for which we now find the finances from the national Exchequer and otherwise from current national income.
The starting point in any consideration of this kind, surely, is to remember that with the present national insurance provisions, we should in 1948—if those provisions were maintained until then—be paying a Treasury contribution estimated by the Actuary at£202 million. The main item of cost in 1948, if those provisions were to remain as they are, without adding a single penny to any benefit, would be a charge on the plan of£198 million for old age pensions. The figure which the Actuary estimates will be required in 1978, when the full weight of the rapid ageing of our population will be experienced, is a total Exchequer contribution of£452 million. But we must remember that if we did not add one penny to the


present scale of old age pensions and supplementary pensions, it is estimated that by 1978 the number of old age pensioners would have doubled and there would be a charge, therefore, in that year, amounting to something of the order of£400 million on the present basis of expenditure. There is no hon. Gentleman opposite, and certainly no hon. Gentleman on this side of the House who would suggest that it is within the limits of possibility for any party in the House to suggest that we should scale down the existing level of utterly inadequate old age pensions, as we know them today. On the contrary, all the pressure, and, in fact, the general agreement, is that it is completely essential that we should increase old age pensions at least to the minimum level suggested in the Bill. Therefore, in all these calculations of expenditure let us remember that the extra amounts to be found by the Exchequer in subsequent years will be relatively small increases as compared with the increases that are being thrown upon the contributors themselves who are asked to contribute for the benefits under this plan.
In arguing about expenditure hon. Members have been apt—I know it is a habit not confined to any one side— to talk as though the available pool of resources from which all these things must be drawn, our national income, is a static and fixed amount. That, of course, is an utter illusion. As every hon. Member will remember when he thinks about it, one of the curious and significant things about the national income is that for a long period of years before the war, the national income had been increasing year by year by a percentage of the order of 1½ per annum, and that increase took place in the worst years of our trade as well as in the good years. There is no reason whatever to suppose that in the years that lie ahead of us our national income, which has been advancing steadily in that way all those years, will suddenly come to a dead stop and remain fixed at the level at which it now is. On the contrary, I imagine it is a safe assumption that, with the impact of the war, with the impact that comes upon us now from our changed position in the world, there will be added incentives still further to improve the technical pro

cesses of our industries, and still further to improve the technical skill of our people. I think it is probably a reasonable assumption that we can look for that natural increase in annual income not only to continue in the years to come, but probably to increase at a progressive rate. If that is' a safe assumption, as I think it is, we have to remember that when the full weight of this insurance plan comes to be felt, in 1978—in 30 years' time—on the assumption that our national income will increase not at 1½ per cent., but at 1 percent. per annum, which is, I think, a completely certain estimate, even at the worst, we shall have available in our pool of national resources in 1978, to meet the added expenditure which Bills of this sort and other Measures will bring about, an addition to the national income of the order of at least£2,000 million compared with what it is today. Nobody, therefore, can argue, when thinking in terms of a national income, as it will then be, of the order of£10,000 million, that the increases suggested in a plan of this nature are increases that we cannot meet. That, of course, is not so.
This is not really a question of whether or not we have the resources to meet these demands for some measure of justice for the masses of our people; it is really a question of the direction in which we want to use the resources we have, and are going to have. It is really a question of whether we should, by the Measures we pass in this Parliament, assist a process that has been going on now for some time, a shift in 'he distribution of income within our own community. I believe that one of the virtues of a Measure of this sort is that it materially stimulates that shift in the balance of income and the distribution of income within our own community, a shift that will bring about in this country economic and social good of a kind that we have never seen before. I believe that when we change the balance of distribution of national income in this country, we shall not only succeed in raising the standards of life of the masses of our people, but by that very process we shall set free fertilising influences that will have tremendous repercussions upon the whole economic organisation of our country. We cannot begin to estimate the effects of Measures of this kind merely on the basis of their social benefits, great as


those are, because when we raise educational levels and standards, when we raise the standards of medical treatment and get rid, at one swoop, of a large amount of preventible disease that hampers the people of this country—when we do these things and the other things in which we believe—we not only remove a great mass of human misery and suffering, but we also make the masses of our people much better educated and much better technicians in the processes of our industry. When we make this shift in the distribution of income, we not only raise social standards, but we apply incentives that will have most far-reaching effects throughout the economic system of our country.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not sufficiently realise what is happening to them and what is happening to the philosophy for which they stand. Bills like this one, Bills like the Medical Services Bill which is to come, a great mass of the projected Measures which we propose to carry through the House during the lifetime of this Parliament, are Measures which are ultimately incompatible with what is called the free enterprise society in which hon. Members opposite believe. It is my view that all Measures of the kind we are discussing now really find their place properly in a pattern of economic and social organisation other than that for which hon. Members opposite stand. They are Measures that belong to the planned economy for which we stand, and I say definitely that the ultimate result of Measures of this kind passing into law in this country means the extinction of what hon. Members opposite think of as free enterprise.
There is one final point I should like to make. I know that coming into the Debate at this stage, it is not possible for me to expand all the points I have had hurriedly to indicate. I support this Bill also because I look upon it as a broad foundation upon which to build. It is not my conception, and I am sure it is not the conception of any Member on this side of the House, including the Minister, that this Bill is an end. It is not. It is, in my view, a piece of transitional machinery. I propose, as a Member of the Labour Party—and I have no doubt that others share my view—to see that when this Bill becomes law, there shall be progressively, from time to time, new definitions of what are called basic needs

and basic necessities. I am not content, and no Member on this side of the House is content, to see standards of benefit laid down for old people, the unemployed, or the sick, which are calculated merely barely to support life. That is not my conception of social security. There must be, as our economic resources expand, a progressive expansion of our conceptions of basic needs, until we reach the time when we can assure our citizens who fall on bad times that they will get in those times the means of a full life.
That is the conception I have of this Bill and there, finally. is the main reason why I wish to support it. I say to the Minister that I congratulate him, and I congratulate the Government of which I am a supporter, on the fact that they have had the imaginative courage, at a time like this when difficulties of all kinds crowd in upon them, to produce a Measure of this kind. I say to the Minister, and to the Government, "God speed to your efforts. Everyone of us on this side is going to do his utmost to bring them to the speediest fulfilment."

5.34 p.m.

Brigadier Peto: I listened to this Debate with great interest during most of Wednesday, Thursday, and so far today. No one has been more attentive to it than I, with the exception of the Minister. I have two things to say.
The first, that during the weekend while I have been away, I consulted with my own constituents, the local chamber of commerce at Barnstaple, to ascertain their reactions to the suggested 4½d. increase in the contributions of the self-employed. The chairman, the deputy chairman, and the secretary had, of course, not had time to consult on this particular point those whom they represent, but they felt that if they could not get better terms, the majority of the people they represented would be pleased, or at any rate would agree to this additional contribution. At the same time it was made clear that there were, among the self-employed, many people like window-cleaners—whom I think a former speaker mentioned—the village carpenter, the blacksmith, and the man who keeps a little tobacconist shop in the village, who would find anything over 6s. a difficult sum to raise either in good times or bad.
On that point I think the Minister would agree that the Exchequer contribu-


tion for the self-employed is not so great in proportion, as that for the employed, or for the employer. It was stated by the Parliamentary Secretary that in the event of an additional 4½d. being agreed to, in order to bring the. self-employed into line for sick benefit, the Exchequer contribution would come to the round figure of£1,000,000. But I would ask the Minister to consider whether it would not be possible to limit the contribution paid by the self-employed to a maximum of 6s. and to explore by what means the Exchequer could find the difference. 1 am certain that we do not want to have people in. poor circumstances defaulting or being unable for one reason or another to find this contribution. My second point is that I do not know clearly whether those who are in receipt of Army pensions for wounds or disabilities are or are not entitled to full benefit under the National Insurance scheme. In other words, can a man or woman draw public funds from two sources—a pension and full insurance benefit under the National Health or National Insurance scheme, at the same time?
We have heard a good deal on the financial side of the scheme. I felt that much of it was above my head, but I think, broadly speaking, I am in entire agreement with those who say we can afford whatever we must afford. Cost will not be a limiting factor. But at the same time I much welcomed the passage in the Prime Minister's speech in which he promised that within a certain period— he did not specify when—he would give the House and the country an overall view of what the national expenditure is on social services under all headings, including education, free hospitalisation, this insurance scheme and other similar schemes, and also the cost of National Defence. I believe that when the country sees the overall picture of what is being added to a man's wages in the way of benefits, it will make for more contentment. As an Army officer, I was frequently told, when I complained that my pay was too little, that I had a great many hidden benefits that people like me should realise. My hidden benefits, when worked out, were in fact something very substantial. They were, two horses, one groom, and so on—I will not go into details—but it did come to a very large figure. I believe that if the people of

this country realised what is being given to them over and above their pay in the way of free issues, it would help to make for contentment.
All I ask is justice for the friendly societies on the understanding that they are efficient and self-governing, and that a scheme can be found by which they will not be duplicating other people's work. I, like many other Members on this side of the House, gave my good will during the Election to the inclusion of the friendly societies in this scheme of national insurance. Anybody who was here last Thursday evening and witnessed the discomfiture of the Parliamentary Secretary when faced with this matter, will feel averse from running the same risk himself of going back on his word. I would not like to be considered one of those who promise something in an Election and then fail to fulfil the promise. I ask the Minister therefore to include those friendly societies which are self-governing. I ask for justice for them, and justice for the self-employed. We all recollect that at Prayers every day we pray that the result of our consultations shall be the maintenance of justice; it is one thing to say that and another thing to carry it out. Let us see, in this scheme of ours—I call it "ours "because, with the exception of one or two Members, we are all fully determined to carry out the best Measure we can of national insurance—that we have justice with it, and that no one is in any case the worse off because of it.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Blyton: I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity of speaking on this comprehensive Bill, which deals with the poverty of our people and how it has affected them in the years gone by. I listened to the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) and the right hon. Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law). The former put forward the claims of youth, while the latter suggested that we could go into the Library and look up the Tory record of social service in this country. It is not necessary for me to go into the Library to find out what the Tory record has been. I happen to have lived during the last 25 years as a workman and a trades union leader, and I know exactly what their record is. In regard to the claims


of youth, all the representations that were made to Tory administration in the inter-, war years fell upon deaf ears.
The Tory Party opposite gave an unemployed man 2s. per week to maintain a child. They gave 7s. per week for a wife, and 15s. to 18s. for an applicant, in those inter-war years. As trades union officials, we have had to advise sons and daughters of working-class families to leave their homes so that their fathers and mothers could get benefit under the pernicious means test that was brought in round about 1931. I ask the Minister to break away from Tory administration in his regulations under the Bill, which I support wholeheartedly. The three days waiting period is a considerable advancement on the present law. The man who works on short time will be able to pick, up 3s. 6d. instead of the present 2s. 6d., which is the present law. On the question of 12 days and 13 weeks, a man will get a three-day waiting period, something that he has never been able to get in the past.
What disturbs me in relation to this part of the Bill is that, if a man is on sickness benefit or on compensation and he goes, either from the sick fund or from compensation back to unemployment pay, the Measure does not give any indication whether he has to put in another three waiting days. I suggest to the Minister that when a man comes from compensation or from sickness to unemployment, because of his inability to follow his pre-accident or pre-sickness employment, the last three days of his incapacity should be regarded as waiting days and he should go straight on to the Unemployment Fund and be paid on the first day of his unemployment.
Might I also ask the Minister to consider the question of the wholly or partially maintained dependant? If ever there was a mathematical calculation which has played havoc with small incomes, it is this formula. Take the case of a boy maintaining a widow or a dependant who has a pension of£1 a week If the boy's wage is£2, that makes£3 altogether. When that is divided by two, it makes 30s.a week for each of them. It is then compared with the£1 pension which is coming in, and the ruling is that the dependant is not wholly or partly maintained If the same person had a son earning£6 a week, making£7 for the two of them, the average would then

be£3 10s. The result is that such people are able to get benefit as against the people with low incomes. I ask the Minister to consider the point, and try to help the lower-income group and not penalise them with this mathematical formula.
I am a bit disturbed, like my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), about the tribunals on the question of the five years. We might as well face the fact that in the labour market today there are men who have not done work for five, six or seven years, even during the war, when manpower was so essential. The reason that they are not employed is either that they have been crippled in industry and have been certified by a doctor as unable to do light work, or they have had a chronic. illness which has incapacitated them so that they have become an odd lot on the labour market. These men, who will not fit into employment, may now be 59 or 60 years of age. They will be going to the tribunal from month to month, or three months to three months, to get further extended periods of benefit under the Bill.
I am given to understand that the two essential points on which persons will have to satisfy the tribunal will be that they are capable and available for work, and on their willingness to work. I worked on a court of referees where we used to have a 78-day review of a man's case. It was practically the N.G.S.W. I am quite prepared to accept the Minister's assurance that this stupid idea of testing a man for work will not be embodied in the Regulations. As the means test has gone, I am still prepared to accept his assurance on the matter. If a man refuses what he considers to be suitable employment, and if he gets six weeks' disqualification, will that be held against him at the end of the 180 days of statutory benefit, and he be regarded by the local tribunal, taking into consideration the circumstances of the area, as a person not willing to work? If I could get some assurance on those points— I believe the Minister will meet them—we would be able to get some satisfaction on that particular score

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does my hon. Friend realise that even then this power to continue benefit would only last five years, and that after 1951, 180 days is the whole of the entitlement with nothing after that?

Mr. Blyton: I particularly raised the question of the odd lot in the market rather than general unemployment, because that is the problem which is here today.
There is another point in relation to this Bill which I wish to raise. This Bill says that it provides social security, and in the main I agree. I would ask the Minister what is to happen to a widow under 40, who is capable and available for work, and who as a result of the nonavailability for work in the area, has received her 13 weeks' benefit under the Act? If the 13 weeks' benefit has been received, and no work is available, this woman is a case for a public assistance committee, because she is not covered within the confines of the Act. In cases of that kind, I suggest to the Minister that she should take the right of her husband's insurance until such time as work is found for her, and she has to receive unemployment benefit.
I dealt with another feature of this Act in the Standing Committee on the National Injuries Bill. This Bill states one of the disqualifications to be if a person fails, without good cause, to submit to such medical or other examination or treatment as may be required in accordance with the regulations. I hope that this does not include the question of an operation or an amputation. It may be the doctor may say that an operation will rehabilitate a man. If the man refuses because of the fear of the knife, I claim that we are not entitled to disqualify him because he objects to operation or amputation. A person's body is inviolable; a man should determine the question of amputation or operation, without any disqualification in relation to his benefit.
My last point covers the question of a woman whose husband is killed. As the Industrial Injuries Bill stands, the age for a widow is 50 years. This Bill stipulates 40 years, so that assuming a woman's man is killed, and she is 41 years old, she will get£1. If her husband dies a natural death, she will get 26s. per week under the Bill which we are now discussing. Unless the age is altered, in the Industrial Injuries Bill, we shall have the anomaly of the wife whose husband is killed receiving£1 when she is 41 years old, while the widow of a person who dies from natural causes will receive 26s. under the present Bill.
I would like to raise a further point with the Minister. If a person is killed, does the widow receive two pensions, seeing that her husband has contributed to both sections? In putting these questions, I do so with the object of clarification, and also in the hope that the Minister will revise the administration of the past and make it err on the side of the working class applicant for these particular benefits.

5.55 p.m.

Major Digby: I am very glad, even at this late stage of the Debate, to have the opportunity to say how very much I welcome the introduction of this scheme, originally a Coalition Measure and one which the great majority of us wholeheartedly welcome. It was Shakespeare who wrote, in Macbeth, that security was "mortal's chiefest enemy." We would not subscribe to that view today. Rather, I think, we would prefer to use the words of Chatham "Security is our watchword "; for that indeed is the object of this whole scheme. It is by that standard that we would wish to judge it. I am sorry that rather a lot of this Debate, nearly all of which I have heard, has been devoted not to the future but to what has happened in the past, and there has been some attempt to make political capital out of this Measure. I am somewhat surprised because I thought that hon. Members opposite were very anxious to "face the future." However, in this Debate they have been looking backwards over their shoulders quite a lot.
I would say a word or two about the form of this Bill. As has been said by previous speakers, this undoubtedly leaves much to be desired. A great deal is left to regulations; the Schedules at the end, amending and repealing a lot of Acts of Parliament, are definitely difficult to follow. I think that the position with regard to regulations is well summed up in the words of the Government Actuary, who says quite baldly:
 A variety of matters affecting the course of the scheme and the income from contributions are to be left to be dealt with by Regulations.
So that there are certain features about this scheme which are a little difficult to know until we have seen those regulations.
I wish also to refer to another matter which has already been dealt with, namely, the assumptions on which the


Government Actuary's Report was based. I could not help being struck with the vagueness of some of those assumptions, yet they are most important to the whole future functioning of the scheme. It will be seen, for example, that the classification of the population in the future is based on a 15-year-old census. Further, the mortality rate is based on the mortality of the war years 1942–44. I hope that the Government are confident that these assumptions are justified, and that the scheme is covered. With regard to the assumption on Unemployment Insurance, it strikes one as being on the high side, at least I hope so, because I think it has been estimated by the "Economist" newspaper that, judging by these figures, in 1948 there would be unemployed to the number of 1,640,000, a number which we certainly hope will not be reached.
I now pass to the question of the cost of this scheme; I know that amongst hon. Members opposite it is very unpopular to think about the cost of anything, but we have a high responsibility in this matter. I was very glad to hear the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Paton) deal with this matter, because I think it is very pertinent. To my mind this scheme, which sets out to provide security, should try to provide it in all circumstances, not just in the best circumstances. If security is to mean anything at all, it should mean security even in times of grievous economic crisis and enable the individual, to use the words of Addison:
 To stand secure amid a falling world.
That is what we want, so I do not think it is right that we should brush over too lightly the question of the cost of this scheme in particular relation to other national expenditure, because I believe that this scheme is particularly important and that its future should be absolutely assured in connection with other branches of national expenditure.
A great deal has been said already— very rightly—about the self-employed, and I am particularly glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has announced a concession with regard to the 24-day waiting period for sickness benefit which I, like many others, regard as an injustice. However, I am still worried about the contributions of the self-employed; they strike me as being very high and, not only that, but I cannot

understand why the Exchequer contribution in their case is so low. If I have read the figures correctly, in five years' time when the full scheme comes into operation, the self-employed will pay 6s. 1d. contribution and the employed 4s. 9d.—twopence more than at present. The contributions from the Exchequer will be only 1s. towards the 6s. 1d. of the self-employed and 2s. 1d. towards the 4s. 9d. of the employed. If we reduce that to a proportion, we see that the self-employed is getting an amount equal to only one-sixth of the contribution contributed by the Exchequer and the employed man is getting nearly one-half. I hope that when the Minister is considering the question of the concession of sickness benefit, he will consider whether some adjustment cannot be made to meet what appears to be, on the face of it, a grave injustice.
The Minister has had to listen to many pleas on behalf of the friendly societies during the course of this Debate, and I wish to add mine. I was not pledged at the Election, unlike many hon. Members opposite; on the other hand it was from no lack of conviction that I refused to give a pledge. I feel this is a matter which justifies reconsideration. We are all quite familiar with the arguments advanced by the Minister against the inclusion of the friendly societies, but I believe there are very strong arguments on the other side as well as answers to the arguments which he has advanced. The simple issue seems to me to be what is in the interests and for the convenience of the consumers of social insurance: that must surely be the test. This scheme has to be a scheme of security for the masses and not security for any new Ministry. I believe there are a number of reasons why it would be in the interests of the consumers that these friendly societies should be found a place in this scheme, and I do not believe it is beyond the wit of man to fit them in. It is undoubted that we want to go on encouraging voluntary insurance We do not want to regard this insurance scheme as a peak beyond which people should not wish to insure themselves. Yet we are going, to the convenience of the Ministry, no doubt, to force them to have two entirely separate systems for insuring. themselves, two separate lots of medical certificates. Indeed, I gather that in the case of a man who was ill for 10 days


and subscribed to a voluntary insurance scheme as well as the State scheme, he might have to get as many as six medical certificates. That, in my view, is quite unreasonable.
Again, rightly, the question of the personal touch has been dealt with in this matter. The Minister rather tended to brush that aside and said that he did not think people liked to be visited so much. I very much doubt whether he did not over-stress that argument, and I would like to quote some words from the booklet of a friendly society in my part of the world which has just celebrated its centenary. In referring to the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman, it says this of the scheme:
 When run by the State, friendliness and brotherhood would be taken away.
I think that is the crux of the matter. We feel that under the present system there is a personal touch which, unfortunately always seems at present to be lacking in the work of Government Departments. We hope that will be remedied one day, but we have yet to see it actually done. Modern government is apt to be much too remote and too inhuman. Here you have tried machinery for bringing human understanding to every doorstep. I beg the Government not to discard it in favour of bureaucratic uniformity.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake: Owing to an understanding between the two sides of the House, the Debate on the Second Reading is to be concluded. I understand, about 7 o'clock, and in those circumstances I feel I must intervene now if I am to give the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal sufficient time to answer the many important points which have been raised during the 2½ days of debate.
I have more than one personal connection with this Bill and with the Ministry which is adorned by the presence of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill. It was on a Friday morning in November, 1944, that we were taking in this House the. Committee stage of the Bill to establish a Ministry of Social Insurance. I was left in charge of the Committee stage of the Bill, along with the Minister-Designate of Social Insurance, who was the present Lord Chancellor, and an Amendment was moved from the back

benches opposite to delete the word "Social" and to insert the word "National." That Amendment, rather surprisingly, was supported on all sides of the House by, among others, the present Minister of Health, in an eloquent speech. I thought I should be pleasing everybody in the House by getting up, in the absence of any senior Minister, and accepting this Amendment, which I did; but, within a very few minutes the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal blew in, in a terrible tantrum with a junior Minister for having accepted an Amendment. I hope that, by now, he is a little more reconciled than he was then to the title of the new Ministry. I, for my part, certainly think that the title "Minister of National Insurance" is a far better one than "Minister of Social Insurance would have been.
I was also, of course, concerned in what is now known as the "Beveridge Plan" from the very outset. I remember calling on the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal to discuss who should be chairman of the Committee which it was proposed to establish. I was not myself quite so happy as he was about Sir William Beveridge; I doubted if he knew sufficiently well the extreme intricacies of the law relating to workmen's compensation to be able to weave that part of our social provisions against misfortune into a comprehensive scheme. But, I think, on looking back, that the right hon. Gentleman made a very wise choice, and I think the House should be grateful to Sir William Beveridge for the exceedingly able report he produced in an exceedingly short space of time. For these reasons, I feel it is a pleasure to take part in a Debate of this friendly character in which hon. Members on all sides of the House have made most competent and interesting speeches, containing many useful suggestions for the improvement of this Bill.
Hon. Members opposite have referred in rather disparaging terms, from time to time, to the Conservative attitude towards this Bill. May I say, therefore, speaking on behalf of my Party, that we welcome this Measure whole-heartedly? It is part of a very much larger picture of a better Britain which was planned under that-much-maligned and much-despised Coalition Government which brought this country through the war. Only two Ministers in that Government were fortunate enough themselves to be able to


carry through this House reforms on which they had worked for many months and many years. Those two Ministers were my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) whose Education Bill went on the Statute Book, and the present Lord Chancellor who piloted the Family Allowances Bill through this House. But there were other Measures planned by other Ministers There was the great health scheme with which the name of Mr. Ernest Brown, and that of the right hon. and learned Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink) were associated; the Industrial Injuries scheme with which I had, in my humble way, some little connection, and the employment side of this picture upon which the present Foreign Secretary spent much time. It was a team of all the talents, and I think it produced some very good plans for us to work on for the future. But there is one name I am very glad the Prime Minister mentioned the other day, because, throughout all these discussions of plans, opposite points of view had frequently to be reconciled. There was always at our elbow Sir Walter Womersley, the Minister of Pensions, very anxious to make quite sure that nobody got a better deal than did the Service pensioner. Throughout all these discussions the man who presided over all our meetings and brought to our discussions an enormous wealth of practical knowledge and experience, was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). I am glad that the Prime Minister paid him a special tribute in his speech the other day.
While we welcome this Measure, we have some criticisms to make of it. We were led to believe in the last Government that no Bill dealing with such a mass of different subjects could contain less than 300 or 400 Clauses, and my surprise can be imagined therefore when the Government produced a Bill of 79 Clauses. This is streamlined legislation with a vengeance. I am told by those who have counted up the number of times that the word "prescribed" appears in the Bill, that there will have to be as many as 99 separate sets of regulations to implement the Bill. I hope that is not the case, but I think anyone reading the Bill with any knowledge of the background of the subject, will find a large number of examples either of haste on

the one hand or of difficulties postponed, on the other. The hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) mentioned one only a short time ago. Why, he said, is the share fisherman not covered by the Bill? Has not the battle of the share fisherman already been won? He had a great fight to get the share fisherman into the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill. One would have thought that the position of the share fisherman might have been assured in this Measure. Then there is the question of waiting days to which the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) has just referred. This Bill proposes three waiting days. The National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill, by a rather skilful device of counting the day of the accident as one of the days, in effect reduced the period to two days. That provision was struck out in Committee upstairs by supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and the result is that we have now a Bill dealing with industrial injuries without any waiting days. I think the Government ought to make up their minds on this question. It is perfectly clear that it must be dealt with uniformly in the two great Bills at present before the House.
I think the most difficult question of all in framing these Measures is that of overlapping benefits, and, on that, this Bill is quite silent. There are cases where benefits under the old legislation were duplicated, and there may be cases in which they are triplicated. The Beveridge Report was quite plain on this matter. It said that except in the case of partial industrial incapacity the rule should be that no person should draw more than one pension or one benefit at the same time. When we came to examine that apparently simple principle, we found it very difficult to apply in practice, and all sorts of cases of overlapping benefits became apparent which would have to be dealt with by some comprehensive scheme. A great deal of work was put in on this issue long before the Coalition Government fell. I am a little surprised that eight or nine months later, we find "the whole question—I think the most difficult of all questions arising out of this Bill—shelved completely by Clause 30, and left over for regulations to be promulgated later.
There is another matter of fundamental importance upon which this Bill is abso


lutely silent. One of the chapters in the Beveridge Report is headed "The Problem of Alternative Remedies." Sir William pointed out that under a system where the State undertakes free medical treatment, free hospital treatment, free rehabilitation and cash payments to ensure against disability of all forms, this question of the position of the disabled person who has a claim against some third party must be very carefully considered. The question which Sir William Beveridge raised was, what is the proper relationship between the damages recoverable by the injured person and the Insurance fund? Could a defendant in an action secure the benefit of the fact that the injured person is comprehensively insured, or. on the other hand, should the injured person obtain his damages in full with all the special damages attaching to medical treatment and so on in addition, and over and above his insurance benefits? Or, as a third alternative, Sir William asked, should the Fund not have rights to recover all the expenditure by the Fund against a negligent defendant?
These questions were so fundamental to a scheme of this character that a very high-powered Committee was established under the chairmanship of Sir Walter Monckton. In July, 1944, that Committee made a report on an interim basis on a very limited aspect of these questions to enable the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Simon. to carry his Contributory Negligence Bill through the House of Lords. On all the main issues no report has yet been received from the Monckton Committee. so far as I am aware. We always understood that their report must be received and considered and that the Government must make up its mind on these difficult but fundamental issues before a Social Insurance Bill could be carried through the House of Commons. I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply what the Government propose to do as regards that Committee? Do they hope, before this Bill is passed into law, to introduce Amendments and additions to the Bill arising out of the reports of the Monckton Committee?
I have dealt as shortly as I can with some matters in which difficulties appear to me to have been shelved by this Bill. The main points of criticism which have been made on all sides of the House must, by now, be clear to the right hon. Gentle

man. My first point of criticism is this: I had always hoped that eventually, as we are assimilating the benefits for sickness and unemployment, we might one day be able to assimilate the benefits for" sickness and unemployment on the one hand with the benefits for industrial disability on the other. That, if it could eventually be achieved, would get rid of a. great many difficult disputes as to the causation of disability and injury. I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance has widened the gaps, which were inevitable at the outset of these schemes, to such an extent that assimilation can never be achieved. Take two cases, the man with a wife and one child, crippled by disease arising in the one case from industrial employment and in the other case from extraneous causes. In the former case that man may draw 455. personal benefit, 16s. for his wife, 7s. 6d. for his child, 20s for unemployability supplement and up to a further 40s. if he is in need of constant attendance. That is to say, the industrially disabled man with a wife and one child may draw'£6 8s. 6d. a week. But if he is unfortunate enough to come under sickness benefit provided by this Bill he is limited to a total sum of 49s. 6d. The gap is enormous and I doubt if it can ever be bridged. I, therefore, regret that the Minister has not been able to bring the benefits under the two schemes into a rather closer relationship. Perhaps I might give one other example, that is the youth or girl aged 17½. Sickness benefit for them is 15s., but if they meet with an industrial injury their benefit is 33s. 9d. These are large gaps and large discrepancies, and it is a great pity that we have not been able to get a closer relationship between these various scales.
One or two other points of criticism with which I have found myself in agreement have been made on this side of the House. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) raised the question of the death grant. I know it is a legacy from the White Paper prepared by the Coalition Government. The death grant in the case of an adult is to be£20. That will cost, when it reaches its maximum,£12,000,000 a year, and it represents 2d. on the contribution. But all the evidence I have ever heard on this subject of industrial insurance leads me to believe that' the question always asked when one in


quires how much a funeral will cost is: "How much are you insured for?" We also know that the London County Council, under the wise guidance of the Lord President of the Council, provided before the war what I am told was a very decent funeral for the small sum of£ 7 10s. I therefore wonder whether it is wise to provide an automatic death grant of£20 in the case of all adults. I wonder whether some of that money will not be wasted, and whether the cost of funerals will not be inflated by that grant above what is really necessary. That is a small point, but one has to look after the pence in a scheme of this kind if a reasonable charge to the contributor is to be achieved.
I turn for a moment to the question of the self-employed. I and some of my hon. Friends have been fighting the battle of the self-employed on the question of industrial injuries. It has seemed to us quite absurd that in the case of the village joiner who employs a mate, or the small country builder who has a man working beside him on the scaffold, that if an accident occurs one draws all the benefits under the social insurance scheme while the other man draws nothing at all. We have therefore pleaded, and we have had a good deal of support from members of the party opposite, for the inclusion of the self-employed man in some of these schemes. Not only is the self-employed man wholly excluded from industrial injury benefits but he seems to me to have had rather a raw deal under this Bill.] know that the Parliamentary Secretary the other night promised to consider reducing the 24 waiting days before sickness benefit can be drawn. I hope that the Government will see their way to reduce that period substantially, because it seems, to me that the self-employed man is paying a very high contribution for very small benefits compared with the employed man. I think that some of the criticism that the self-employed man seems to attract such a smaller Exchequer grant than does the employed man has a firm foundation.
On the question of the friendly societies I read with great interest—I was unfortunate not to hear it—the speech of the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter). I thought his arguments upon this question were quite unanswerable. They have certainly not. been

answered by anybody who has spoken in the Debate hitherto. We are faced, it is perfectly true, with a choice of two forms of duplication, but if we retain the friendly societies in our administration we will preserve all the great traditions of public service, of co-operation and of knowledge of the homes of the poor people which these societies have built up by over 100 years' experience. I, therefore, trust that the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply will either give us much more cogent reasons than have hitherto been given for the exclusion of the friendly societies or better still, will tell the House that the Government are prepared to think again upon this important question of administration.
I turn to Clause 61 of the Bill, which seems to me to cut right across all principles of social insurance. What does it say? It provides that after a man's right to unemployment benefit has been exhausted he may, in certain circumstances, draw further benefit. It says:
… regulations may authorise the Minister to pay unemployment benefit to insured persons, on the recommendation of a local tribunal, for such number of days of unemployment "… for which they are not entitled to such benefit "…Regulations under this Section shall provide that a local tribunal in making recommendations for the purposes of this Section shall have regard—
(a) to the particular circumstances of the applicant "…
I cannot see any justification whatever for including a provision of this sort in the Bill. Surely, the whole principle of social insurance is that everybody pays the same contribution and is entitled, as a matter of right, to receive the same benefits. What we are to have under this Clause is a local tribunal saying: "Well, Tom Jones is a decent sort of fellow, we will give him another three months' benefit; but so-and-so is a bit of a slacker, we will cut him off at the end of his entitlement period." I say that sort of thing is intolerable under an insurance system. Everybody should be entitled, without any claim for favour, to receive exactly the same treatment in respect of a similar number of contributions. I hope we shall have some better explanation than we have had so far, of the reasons for the inclusion of Clause 61 in the Bill.
Next I turn to Clause 3. That is the provision which enables the Treasury— not the Minister acting under the


guidance and advice of his Advisory Council, but the Treasury—. to vary the contribution rates from time to time. It does seem to me a most amazing proposal:
 Where it appears to the Treasury expedient so to do with a view to maintaining a stable level of employment, they may by order direct that contributions… be paid at such higher or lower rates… as may be so specified or determined.
Can anybody imagine any Government operating the powers contained in Clause 3? We can usually tell when we have got a slump, but we are awfully bad at recognising a boom. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen may remember, as I well do, the General Election of 1929, which was fought in May. It was fought almost entirely upon the issue of unemployment. We thought we were in the midst of an unprecedented depression. The new Prime Minister, Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, appointed a sub-committee of Ministers to tackle this great difficulty. If the picturesque language of today had been in operation then, it would have been called "the Committee for the Battle of the Jobs." I almost hesitate to remind hon. Members of the names of the members of that Committee. They were a very mixed lot. They did not all stay the' full course, but, at any rate, at that time the Prime Minister of the day thought we were in the midst of an unprecedented depression. Well, in two years' time, we knew what a depression really was. Can any hon. Member imagine that in the year 1929, in the spring, when we really were enjoying quite a fair degree of prosperity in this country—can anybody imagine Mr. Baldwin, who was then Prime Minister, saying, with a General Election three or four months ahead, "We are having such a good time in this country that we are going to double everybody's insurance contribution"?
Really, I think it is a fantastic Clause. No Government would deliberately say, "Up go all your contributions because we think the country is having a good time," and, conversely, what Government would take the risk, when things are going badly, of lowering contributions in order to try and restore prosperity? As "The Times" pointed out in its leading article this morning, it would be much better to increase the benefits of the unfortunate people receiving unemployment

and sickness benefit than to concede extra money to the people who were still fortunate enough to retain their jobs. There fore, I say, I regard Clause 3 of the Bill as quite unworkable. In any event, if that Clause is to be included in the Bill, the powers should be operated under the advice of the Advisory Council established by the Bill.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask a question?

Mr. Peake: No, I really cannot give way. I want to say one word upon the question of the finances of the scheme. For myself, I am not in any way disposed to quarrel with the level of benefits proposed in the Bill. I regard them as in no way excessive having regard to the depreciation in the value of money which has taken place since 1939. After all, an allowance of 5s. for a child today is only the equivalent of an allowance of 3s. 4d. before the war. In the same way, the 26s. basic rate in this Bill for a great many of the benefits is very little more than the 17s. which was paid to the unemployed man in 1939. I, for my part, take a more hopeful view of the finances of this scheme than do some of my hon. Friends behind me.
I think myself that the Government Actuary may have been overcautious in one or two of his estimates. I think that the increased supplements given to pensioners, as result of them not retiring when they reach retirement age, may prove an economy in the long run. I think the prospect of attaining the higher rate by waiting another year or two may induce a great many of the older people to continue in harness until they die without ever drawing their pension. I also think the Government Actuary has been overcautious in estimating unemployment after the war at 8½ percent. of the insured population—

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask a question?

Mr. Peake: No. The value of this Bill to the contributors rests, in the last resort, on the value of money being maintained. It is a sacred trust for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see that money does not fall further in value. During a war it is inevitable, I think, that money must to some extent depreciate; but I do hope that the Chancellor will consider it an absolutely sacred trust not to allow the savings of the people to depreciate further.
It was for this reason that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) would not tie himself down to a firm figure for social insurance benefits until he could see the full post war picture of our financial position. We on this side of the House only hope that the Chancellor is not living, like the Minister of Food, in a fool's paradise.

Sir W. Smithers: He is.

Mr. Peake: It is really essential, before this Bill takes final shape, that the country should be given an estimate of our future financial prospects as a whole. As "The Times" said in a very wise leading article this morning:
 The social security scheme cannot be discussed any longer in isolation from a budget showing all the main components of projected public expenditure and the sources from which it is to be financed.… The conclusion of the Debate today offers an opportunity to make some amends for a serious omission.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman who replies will be able to fit the expenditure under this Bill into a wider review of postwar finance. If he is not able to do so, I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will take note of the universal demand for such a step and will take an early opportunity of giving it to the House. In conclusion, may I say we regard this as a fine scheme? We are proud, on this side of the House, to have played a part, an important part, even— it is alleged against us that it was a predominant part an the days of the Coalition Government in the preparation of this plan.

Sir W. Smithers: The right hon. Gentleman should speak for himself.

Mr. Peake: My hon. Friend made it quite clear that he is speaking only for himself, and, if he pleases to pursue his course, I hope he will go into the Lobby alone.

Sir W. Smithers: Certainly, I will.

Mr. Peake: We, on this side, hope that, by diminishing the fear of tomorrow, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke so eloquently in opening the Debate, we may help to liberate and revive that spirit of enterprise and hard work which alone can repair the ravages of war, and enable us to build a better future for the sons and daughters of what rightly deserves the name of Great Britain.

6.42 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I am not to be drawn by the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) or of his right hon. Friends, and, if he is expecting us tonight to give a preview of the April Budget, I air afraid he is going to be tremendously disappointed. We will be prepared to face the Money Resolution on this Bill, but, so far as the Bill itself goes, it would make our procedure too elastic if we were to have a pre-Budget Debate two months before the Budget is due. The Second Reading of a Bill is, broadly speaking, a battle of principles. [An Hon. Member: "Hear, hear."] That is right; I am glad my hon. Friend agrees with me for once. Details are bound to come into any Second Reading discussion, however prolonged it may be. Not all these details have a very substantial importance. The real question. in a Second Reading Debate, and the real question before the House now, is not whether this or that detail is to be accepted or rejected by my right hon. Friend tonight, but whether this Bill, as a whole, commends itself to the support of the House. And the answer to that question, in spite of some wavering and very tepid speeches from the other side of the House, is undoubtedly "Yes." We have had maiden speeches from both sides of the House during this Debate, and great interest has been shown in a very large number of the points that have been raised, many of which are points which, on the whole, I think, are more appropriate to the Committee stage, and, if need be, and if hon. Members want to go further into battle, on the Report stage of the Bill.
There is one point in the speech of my right hon. Friend to which I want to refer particularly, because, so far as I recollect, it was not raised in the earlier days of the Debate, and that is the question of alternative remedies. As my right hon. Friend said, in July, 1944, the National Government did appoint a Departmental Committee to deal with this very complicated, legal and human problem. The human issues are simple, but the legal complications seem to baffle many lawyers, and, as my right hon. Friend said. Sir Walter Monckton was made Chairman of that Committee. He had other missions abroad, and then he was made Solicitor-General in the Caretaker


Government, which rather interfered with his work, with the result that he was not back in harness on that job until October. I understand that efforts were made to provide another Chairman for the Committee, and I am very glad to tell my right hon. Friend that, a week from now, the Committee will be considering its final report. Obviously, I have not seen that report and do not know what it contains, but it is quite clear that, if there are any proposals, and there must be some, they will involve amendment of the Industrial Injuries Bill, and, possibly, of the National Insurance Bill, too. What I can say is that, so far as the Industrial Injuries Bill is concerned, any Amendments which are necessary—though I grieve to have to do it there—will be introduced in another place, and, if the House agrees to dissent, it can do so. As regards the National Insurance Bill, necessary Amendments will, I hope, be introduced during the Committee stage of the Bill, and I hope that will suit my right hon. Friend.
I would like to come down to what are really the broad issues of this Bill, and I shall not enter into the quarrel between Conservative and Liberal hon. Members, which has again popped up on this occasion, as to who deserves the greater credit for their contribution in the past to our social progress. I would only point out in passing that the existence of a Labour Government today is sufficient indication that the people of this country no longer-believe that the older political parties fill the Bill. I have, in the last Parliament, on more than one occasion, assessed the relative contributions of the older political parties, and I do not propose to do so today, because I think that discussion is quite out of date. During the 10 years from 1935 to 1945, from the last General Election before the war to the first General Election after the war, there was very little political activity, but, at the same time, there was a good deal of thinking going on, which, coloured by the events of six years of war, led the electors to the view that the Labour Party's policy was the one for them. [Interruption.] Agreed. As long as I get acceptance from the other side, I am quite happy; if I do not, I am equally happy. The people have given us their confidence, and that confidence we shall justify by deeds.

Sir William Darling: The confidence men.

Mr. Greenwood: I come back now to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law), who spoke following the Prime Minister on the second day of the Debate. I have never heard the right hon. Gentleman make such ridiculous and wild statements as he did on that occasion They reflected very badly on the good sense of the electorate at the last General Election. He said:
 I honestly believe that this Government is the most reactionary Government this country has ever had. This Government is living in the past, in the nineties.
I am awfully sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not present. Nobody in this country is going to believe that kind of political poppycock in the year of grace 1946. The Bourbons of politics sit on the opposite benches. Though numbers of Conservative Members are, I am specially happy to think, showing signs of life and attempting to make up a very big leeway in political thought, the most hoary Rip-van-Winkles of this House have sat on those benches.
I do not propose—it would take up too much time—to recite instances of Tory resistance to steps which the public have felt in their minds, and public opinion has proved, to be vital to our national interests. Nor would it, at this stage, be proper for me to enlarge on the vindictive and repressive legislation of the 1927 Trades Union Act. [An Hon. Member: "That is tomorrow."] But I would say this—and I have already paid my tribute to the rather trembling, but no doubt honest approaches to a progressive policy in certain elements of the Conservative Party—if stark reaction ever rears its head again in this House, its instruments will be the Tory Party. And I assert, on the facts of the political situation, that the greatest agency for sane and ordered progress in this country now—and hon. Members opposite know it—is the Labour Party. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington spoke of:
 This hotch-potch of legislation which is being hurled at the heads of. Members of the House of Commons…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th February, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 1915.]
He must know that such a description is utterly false. It describes quite in-


accurately the social legislation now before the House. The Social Security plan—the broad plan, I am not talking of details—was accepted by the National Government in which, as the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, the Conservative Party was predominant. That plan is designed to heal the wounds inflicted by a brutal economic system which was based on the slogan, "Each for himself and the devil take the hindmost." To deal with these wounds we need a comprehensive and coherent plan, the structure of which we will build on sure and unshakable foundations during the lifetime of this Parliament.
What, I ask, is the fundamental social problem? I spoke on it in the last Parliament. It is the existence in our midst of unmerited poverty—poverty over which the strongest characters may triumph, but poverty which has seared the souls, warped the minds and twisted the bodies of millions of our fellow citizens throughout the generations. The Tory Party, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington—I still come back to him— claims to be the champion of freedom.[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] In the past, the poor have been free to make the best of their poverty and insecurity, tempered by grudging concessions wrung from reluctant Governments of the Conservative or Liberal Party. [Laughter.] If that is the idea of liberty of hon. Members opposite, it is not mine. Then—and after this I shall finish with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington—he told us the other day that one of the differences between the Tories and ourselves is that they learn from experience and we never do. This impudent and, indeed, frivolous statement really deserves no reply, but it is going to get one before I finish; I am only starting. But that statement, frivolous though it may be, enables me to remind this House that silver spoons are rare possessions in the homes of those who comprise the great party which sits on these benches, though we have been fortified in this Parliament by men and women whose consciences have been touched and whose minds have been convinced by the principles of the case for which we stand and by their horror of poverty, insecurity and injustice.
The evils with which the Bill before us now deals are evils which have wrecked the homes and the lives of men and women who sit on these benches, of comrades and friends of those who sit on these benches, and the homes and lives of people among whom they have lived their lives, as most of us on these benches have. I claim that in these matters we have firsthand experience as against the secondhand and second-rate experience of hon. Members on the other side of the House, who are now pleading the cause of the poor.

Sir W. Smithers: Nonsense.

Mr. Greenwood: It may seem nonsense, but a lot of what the hon. Gentleman opposite says seems nonsense to me. The moral fervour of the Keir Hardies— they were referred to last week—and other pioneers of my Party was born of bitter, searching experience, combined with a belief in the future of the common man provided he could escape from degrading surroundings and degrading conditions of life. We must, therefore, in our view—and nobody on these benches or opposite is going to disagree with me— get rid of poverty if we are to become an effective democratic community with a dignified life. Something can be achieved by a redistribution of our national income, but that is not the only problem, though I will say a word about that in a moment. The truth is, the national cake is not big enough. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I believe hon. Members probably said "Hear, hear" at something I said on those lines about four years ago. It is not enough to provide an adequate subsistence for all our people, and it is not sufficient to provide those opportunities of life and services which all the people of our country in a democratic community are entitled to enjoy. Those who were Members of the last Parliament may remember that on more than one occasion I emphasised the view that neither nations nor individuals can live on each other's poverty. There must foe on these benches now Members who heard me say that more than once, and I stressed then the fundamental importance of increased production.
To that task we have now laid our hands, and that is part of the answer to the case made against this Bill by hon. Members opposite, who have doubts about


its financial stability in the years to come. That increased production can only be achieved, as I have urged before—as many hon. Members now present on both sides of the House are aware— by the wise and efficient use of our national resources and by the active co-operation of brain and brawn, of management, skill and labour. This job will be a big one, and I am not going to pretend for one moment that it can be accomplished overnight, or in a Session, or in a Parliament. In any event, economic progress in itself may create temporary unemployment. In a transition period, and probably afterwards, sickness and accident may befall workers, and so, therefore, we need a social security service to prevent want during days of adversity and to avoid human deterioration. But the first line of attack must be a full employment policy, for without the production of wealth there will be large-scale unemployment and its consequences, and without it we cannot sustain a proper standard of life for our people—not even for those at work, and certainly not for those who are in difficulty and in awkward circumstances.
Secondly, we have to establish a national health service to attack again constructively the problem of preventable disease and the most effective treatment for all when illness or disability occurs. It is folly to pay out of our earnings as a people, enormous sums of money for the treatment of ailments which ought to become as rare as the plague and typhus. That is a constructive approach to our problem. Thirdly, everything must be done to create conditions for employment which will not impair, but will fully maintain the health and vigour of the workers. We must also ensure that the sick and disabled are restored to full efficiency as early as possible. We can in the very near future look forward with certainty to convalescent and remedial treatment being extended.
During the early stages of the war a great deal was done to bring back into the field of industry men who had been regarded as industrial cripples for years. On the basis of that experiment, my right hon. Friend the present Foreign Secretary and I set up a committee to deal with the problem of rehabilitation of the victims of both accidents and disease. The chairman of that committee was my right hon.

Friend the present Minister of Works. Their report was a very notable contribution to the solution of many of our industrial problems, and the new methods now available will shorten the period of incapacity, and restore as far as possible to people who have fallen by the wayside full economic efficiency. The results of that will be twofold. Our productivity will be increased, which is our major problem, and the drain on the funds of the two schemes with which my right hon. Friend is concerned will be diminished. Those are the Measures in the forefront of our policy. Lastly we need a Measure of redistribution of the national income so as to come to the aid of large families, and that Measure was passed into law in the last session.
I have tried to show that the major tasks are constructive ones. We have placed them in the forefront of our activities. The social security scheme for which my right hon. Friend is responsible stands behind them, not in front of them. I hope we are getting rid of the belief that it is cheaper to keep people on the dole than to keep them in employment. The idea of the social security scheme is to shelter and care for those casualties in the battle of life through bereavement, sickness, accident or infirmity. A social security scheme is no alternative to a constructive economic and social policy. This is not to belittle the Measure which is now in the hands of my right hon. Friend. Indeed, not many Members on this side of the House will expect me to minimise its importance, but I would say this—and it is important to grasp this during our Second Reading Debate— that the primary importance of this plan does not lie in the fact that it makes substantial improvements in benefits and payments of all kinds, though that, of course, is to be warmly welcomed. The real contribution is to social justice.
As a very old student of our social legislation—I would not like to tell the House how old—I realise that we have to attack all these problems arising out of want in adversity piecemeal. I appreciate that the public did not all realise the urgency of the task, or did not appreciate the seriousness of the task in many types of misfortune. We got a whole series of Acts of Parliament over the years which bore little or no relation to each other. The scales and conditions of benefit


varied from scheme to scheme, and even the bases of the schemes were different and were governed by different considerations. Workmen's compensation had nothing in common with health or unemployment insurance, and health and unemployment insurance were entirely different in character and in scope. A mass of anomalies was created, so that families living in the same street, suffering the same degree of hardship, though arising from different causes, were treated differently. The proper solution is, broadly speaking—as and when we can do it, and it is going to present a great administrative problem—to secure similarity of treatment where there is adversity, however that adversity may be caused.
We have taken great strides in the Industrial Injuries Bill and the National Insurance Bill towards this end. We are erecting a structure which will be capable of expansion and improvement in the light of experience and in accordance with our desire, which is unchallengeable, to establish social justice. There will be those who, at a later stage, will argue that the present Bill is not good enough and does not go far enough. I would say to those Members that we are not writing a closing chapter to Volume I of our social legislation. We—and I mean all of us who are concerned in this, including right hon. Members on the other side of the House—we are now engaged on opening a new volume. We are beginning the opening chapters of that new volume. That old volume, the first volume, opened with very sad chapters. The high light of the rabid capitalism of the early Victorian age was reached when, in 1834, the co-called "New Poor Law" was put on the Statute Book. That Poor Law has poisoned the wells of social justice ever since. Volume I ended with the beginnings of a new conception. It now remains to translate that into practical form, and I hope this Bill will not be delayed a single unnecessary day, with a view to achieving a finality which experience and the growing social conscience of our time will prove in a few years not to be final.
In other words, this Bill is not perfect. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Well, I have said it. Hon Members need not repeat it. This Bill is not perfect. It is the best we could do, in the time we

had at our disposal, and in the circumstances. We have still a lot to learn. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I mean all of us. We all have a lot to learn about the developments and the administration of a social security scheme. It is not our fault today that we, on this side, do not know more about that, but that is undoubtedly the fact. An early task will be to slough off that blot of Victorian capitalism, to which I have referred, the Poor Law. We shall not
bury it darkly at dead of night, The sods with our bayonets turning,"
as was the unfortunate case of the body of Sir John Moore. We shall bury the old Poor Law in the full light of day, with due ceremony. I hope its funeral service will be well attended, and by hon. Members opposite as well; and, as we say in the North, I hope we shall "bury it with ham." When that is done, my right hon. Friend can feel that he has done a great task in building up the structure of our system of social legislation, for then we shall be certain that the indignities imposed on indigent people in the past will never recur.
Some Members opposite, judging by their speeches, feel that this Bill has been introduced too early—I do not think they would have minded if it had been delayed quite a substantial time—and it ought to have been given a much more lengthy consideration than we think is necessary in the circumstances. No Government Report has.ever been so closely studied as the Beveridge Report published three and a quarter years ago, in November, 1942. It has been commented on in newspapers to the extent of scores of thousands of columns. It has been the subject of a very long and strenuous Debate in the House, which some of my hon. Friends will remember. White Papers have been issued on it and fully discussed. Every party at the last General Election was pledged to the broad principles of the plan.

Sir W. Smithers: I was not.

Mr. Greenwood: I think the hon. Member ought to form a party of his own. I think it is unchallengeable that the people of this country for that three and a quarter years, including the time of the General Election, paid their tribute and gave their support to the broad plan of this scheme. We regard it as incumbent on us to fulfil that pledge, on behalf of


our hon. Friends as well as on behalf of ourselves, and to fulfil that pledge without delay. If we are to enable the old age pensioners to enjoy the new scale of pensions before they are in the grip of winter this year the Bill must be passed into law in time to make that possible. We cannot afford delays. There must be. of course, adequate debate on the more important issues which have been raised during the Second Reading, and which will be dealt with in the later stages of the Bill. The questions of the self-employed man, the friendly societies, the industrial societies, are problems—quite properly being raised by Members today—which must have adequate discussion in the remaining stages of the Bill.

Mr. R. A. Butler: J hesitate to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to ask him something at the end of his speech. So far, we have had no reply from him to any of the points raised in this Debate. He has just touched on two of the more important matters. There are many others which have been raised, and he has said they must be dealt with later. Could he not, with his authority as a senior member of the Government, give us some indication of the attitude of the Government to the points of view put forward in the course of the Debate?

Mr. Greenwood:: The right hon. Gentleman knows he is pressing for something that Governments very, very rarely give. [Interruption.] I have never known the Second Reading of a Bill of this scale where admissions have been made and concessions given on this scale. Never, on the Second Reading. On my advice my right hon. Friend did it in the case of the Industrial Injuries Bill, for the first time it had ever been done within my memory. I can give this assurance in the name of my right hon. Friend. Tomorrow, he and colleagues will sit down to look at the whole situation, to consider it in the light of the time for the succeeding stages of the Bill with a view to deciding what are the issues which are troubling Members of the House, so that adequate time can be given for discussion before the next stage is reached. My right hon. Friend and the Parliamentary Secretary will then be in a position to declare the Government's policy. I do suggest that it is really "a bit hot" on

the part of the Conservative Party, on the Second Reading of a Bill, to want replies to questions which would require me to anticipate the Budget of 1946, as well as decisions which obviously could not be reached by His Majesty's Government in the course of these three days of discussion.

Mr. Butler: 1 never asked the Government to give this House, or the country, the Budget for 1946. What I did ask was that we should have some conception of how the expense involved in this immense measure of social reform fitted in with the other items of expenditure on the social programme and with the rest of the Government's programme. That has not been given. either to the House or to the country.

Mr. Greenwood: If we consider the finances of this Bill, the rest of the social programme and defence, there is not much left of the national expenditure, apart from the National Debt. I think the right hon. Gentleman has gone beyond reasonable bounds in asking for such wide information, much of which I think will come into the Budget. When he hears the Budget it will be quite proper for" him to say, "There is too much on this, too little for defence," and so on. To raise questions of defence on this particular issue, when mighty meetings are taking place across the road, seems to be a little too much.
While we are determined to get this Bill through, we shall not shirk discussion of major issues which arise. We will give proper and reasonable time for them, but we shall press on with this Bill and put it on the Statute Book, regarding it as a major task, in the full knowledge that it will be warmly welcomed by the people who returned us to power and by those others who suffer from the same perils which this Bill is designed to end.

Mr. Marlowe: Has the right hon. Gentleman nothing to say upon the important topic of friendly societies?

Mr. Greenwood: I have a lot to say on the question of friendly societies. The attitude of the Government has been made perfectly clear, but views have been expressed on this and the other side of the House, and some hon. Members on this side were in harmony with certain hon. Members opposite on that subject. There is no reason to believe that we can come


to any fresh decision. This is a problem which must be thrashed out in Committee. I have never known a Second Reading Debate wind up with a speech making all the concessions which might be made later. Had there been an alteration in the attitude of His Majesty's Government, I should have announced it tonight on behalf of my right hon. Friend. We will fight that battle out as time goes on.
In spite of what the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) opposite said, I think it is clear that it is not the intention of hon. Members opposite to challenge the Second Reading of this Bill. I hope, indeed, that they will help it on to the Statute Book. It is a Measure long overdue, it is a contribution to the better life which, in the light of all the experiences of the war, the people of this country richly deserve. Now that we are free, now that we have overthrown our enemies, it is a Measure which will enable the people of our country to tread the path of greater freedom with great dignity, to the fulfilment of the aims for which they and their fallen comrades have fought.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read, a Second time."

The House proceeded to a Division, and MR. SPEAKER stated that he thought the "Ayes" had it, and, on his decision being challenged, it appeared to him that the Division was unnecessarily claimed, and he accordingly called upon the Members who supported and who challenged his decision successively to rise in their places, and he declared the "Ayes" had it, two Members only who challenged his decision having stood up.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether it is your intention to call any of the Motions on the Order Paper after the Second Reading and before the moving of the Money Resolution?

Mr. Speaker: If I had intended to call any of those Motions, I should have done so, before the end of the Second Reading Debate. It is out of Order to raise them now. We are now going into Committee.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[Major Milner in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

" That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as the new Act ") to establish an extended system of national insurance providing pecuniary payments by way of unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, maternity benefit, retirement pension, widows' benefit, guardian's allowance and death grant and to provide for the making of payments towards the cost of a national health service, it is expedient to give the following authorisations, that is to say:

A. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of contributions towards the cost of benefit payable under the new Act and any other payments to be made out of the National Insurance Fund established there under, being contributions not exceeding in the aggregate sums computed in accordance with the following provisions by reference to the following Tables:
(a) for each contribution as an employed, self-employed or non-employed person paid under the new Act by a person of any description set out in the first column of Table 1, and for each contribution paid under the new Act by an employer in respect of a person of any such description, there may be paid the sum (hereinafter referred to as the "exchequer supplement ") respectively set out in the said Table in relation to a contribution of that class and a person of that description;
(b) in respect of any period mentioned in the first column of Table "11, there may be paid the sums respectively set out in the second column of that Table

so, however, that, if the Treasury, by order under the new Act made with a view to maintaining a stable level of employment, increase the rate of any contribution for which the Exchequer supplement is payable, they shall have power also to increase by the order the rate of the Exchequer supplement for that contribution but in such manner as not to affect (except so far as appears to them expedient for convenience of calculation) the proportion which the rate of the supplement bears to that of the contribution.

TABLE I


Exchequer Supplement to Contributions


Description of person by or in respect of whom contribution is paid.
Amount of supplement.


For contribution as employed person
For employer's contribution
For contribution as self-employed person
For contribution as non-employed person



s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Men over the age of 18
…
…
1
1
1 
 0
1 
 0

9


Women over the age of 18
…

10

9

10

7


Boys under the age of 18
…

7

7

7

5


Girls under the age of 18
…

6

5

6

4

TABLE II


Additional Lump Sum Payments


Period.
Sum payable.


The period beginning with such date as may be provided by the new Act and ending in the with the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine. 
Three million pounds for each complete month period and a proportionate sum for any part of a month therein.


The period of six years next following the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-nine.
Forty million pounds for the first year, and for any subsequent year a sum greater by four million pounds than the sum for the immediately preceding year.

B. To authorise the repayment to the National Insurance Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required in accordance with the provisions of the new Act for the payment of unemployment benefit to insured persons for days of unemployment occurring within a period of five years beginning with a day appointed under that Act, being days for which they are not entitled to such benefit by reason only of having exhausted their right thereto under that Act.
C. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any such increase in sums payable there out as may be occasioned by provisions of the new Act—
(a)extending, as from the day appointed under the new Act, the Unemployment Assistance Act, 1934, so as to apply to persons over the age of sixty-five who are entitled to unemployment benefit or only not so entitled by reason of regulations under the new Act or by reason of a disqualification contained in the new Act; or
(b)amending as from the day appointed under the new Act. Part II of the Old Age and Widows' Pensions Act, 1940, and sub- sections (2) and (4) of section four of the Pensions and Determination of Needs Act, 1943, in relation to—
(i) persons who under the new Act are, or are deemed in accordance with regulations to be, entitled to a retirement pension or to a widowed mother's allowance; and
(ii) persons who under the new Act are, or are deemed in accordance with regulations to be. entitled to a widow's allow

ance and who either are over the age of sixty or are entitled under the new Act to an increase of the allowance for a child.
D. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any such increase in the sums payable there out as may be occasioned by any provision of regulations under the new Act made in connection with the modification by such regulations, as respects the period before the day appointed under that Act, of any enactment repealed or amended by that Act (other than the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936). being a modification—
(a) increasing the rate of any benefit, pension or allowance payable under that enactment;
(b) making the right to any such benefit, pension or allowance subject to additional or altered conditions;
(c )modifying the period for which any such benefit, pension or allowance is payable.
E. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, in manner provided by the Old Age Pensions Act, 1936, of any such increase in the sums payable there out in manner aforesaid as may be occasioned by regulations made under the new Act increasing, as from such day as may be provided by the new Act, the rate of any pension payable under the said Act of 1936, or modifying, as from that day, the right to any such pension.
F. To authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such other sums as may be required for making any payments (not being payments in respect of the cost of benefit under the new Act or other payments


required by that Act to be made out of the National Insurance Fund or payments for which express provision is made by the foregoing paragraphs of this Resolution) which are authorised or required by the new Act to be made by the Minister of National Insurance or any other Government Department.
G. To authorise the payment into the Exchequer out of the National Insurance Fund of such sums as may be provided by the new Act in respect of the cost of any national health service hereafter established by Parliament."— (King's Recommendation signified.)— [Mr. Glenvil Hall].

7.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Nigel Birch (Flint): I was one of the many Members who had hoped to speak on the Second Reading. The Lord President of the Council was the other day rather severe with Members on this side who, he said, dropped behind in A.B.C.A. during the war and were not completely in touch. However that may be, some of us have done our best since the war to catch up. This is a Bill in which I have taken a deep interest, and in whose main principles I very firmly believe. I had hoped to say a few words on the human side of this Bill, but it is my duty to turn away from that to the more sour and depressing aspect of finance. I do feel that something should be said on the financial aspect, because, after all, the sums are very big, and they will increase, and the share of the Exchequer itself will increase as time goes on. For instance, over the next 30 years the cost will go up by 54 per cent., but as against that the cost to the Exchequer itself will go up by 158 per cent.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) in his Second Reading speech and a minute ago and, also, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) have proposed that the Government should let the people of this country know where they stand and that they should give a general picture of the way this expenditure dovetails in with the other claims on our national resources. If I may say so with great respect, I fully agree with practically everything the Prime Minister said when he was replying, except that to my right hon. Friend he gave a very dusty answer; and the Lord Privy Seal, who has just sat down, gave hardly an answer at all. We are, therefore, left with the Government Actuary's Report as the only thing on which we can work, and that is unsatisfactory for two reasons. First of all, it covers only

part of our social security budget; and the second reason is that even that part is not thoroughly covered. He says he was not given sufficient information to make any estimate of the cost of bringing in the earlier old age pension, and the whole of his calculations are deeply affected by the assumption—the major assumption—he makes in paragraph 29, to which I shall refer in a moment. The ardours of peace are such that it is a little old fashioned to talk about the war, but I do not apologise for drawing an analogy from military experience, because I think it is the best way we can illustrate the importance of not dealing with this scheme in isolation but of bringing it into relation with the other demands on our resources.
Many hon. Members during the war, I do not doubt, had occasion to study amphibious operations. In amphibious operations the limiting factor every time was the supply of landing craft. When you had got them you had to see what you could put into them. There were troops, weapons, guns, vehicles, reserve of ammunition, petrol and food, medical supplies, repair facilities for the vehicles, military police, equipment for making advanced landing grounds, and hundreds of other things. All arms and Services were asked to put in their absolute minimum requirements. What always happened was that when you added up the minimum requirements that were estimated you found that the total came to never less than three or four times what the total space of the ships could accommodate. What happened then was that the planners had to reconcile what was desirable with what the different people thought they ought to have with them— to reconcile what was asked for with what was possible. We are in a similar position here. The limiting factor in what we can do will be the real resources available to the British people in 1948 when the Bill starts. Some months ago, in November, "The Economist" estimated that the real resources available to the British people in 1948 might have increased over those available in 1938 by between£400 million and£1,500 million at present prices. That is a very big bracket. What the real figure may be I do not know, but it is a figure of that order out of which we have to meet all the various claims we are to make. Out of consideration for the Lord Privy Seal I will not mention any "meaningless


symbols," but I will mention what claims on our resources there are. First, there are the additional charges under this Bill. I put the Bill first because it is a Bill in which I believe, and I feel it ought to be given a high priority. Then there is education the proposals brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden regarding the raising of the school-leaving age and school meals. and so on. Then there are family allowances, the National Health Service—

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is not in Order in referring to these matters. They do not appear to me to have any relevance to the Money Resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel Birch: I was endeavouring to put the point that there were a great many claims over those which existed in 1938, which we had to consider in deciding whether this Resolution is correct. I had mentioned the National Health Service. I will not enlarge on that. But there are many other things such as houses, the doubled price of coal—

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Member is not entitled to refer to matters, which have no relevance to the Resolution.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: On that point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Although, obviously, on this Resolution we cannot go into details of these things, are we not entitled to discuss whether the large sums of money involved in this Financial Resolution should take precedence over other claims or not? Have We to consider this as an entirely separate consideration?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On that point of Order. Surely, as the House has agreed to the Second Reading of this Measure, with virtual unanimity, the means for carrying it out shall be provided, and all that is in Order is how effective the Resolution is for the purposes of the Bill?

The Chairman: What is in Order is what is set out in the Money Resolution itself. It would not be in Order to extend debate on this Resolution in the way the hon. and gallant Gentleman did.

Lieut.-Colonel Birch: May I refer to one other item in the Actuary's Report, which is presumably relevant? In paragraph 29

of that Report it is estimated that the Armed Forces in 1948 and thereafter will be a million. This is very significant, because, obviously, the number of our Armed Forces will make a tremendous difference to the finances of this scheme. I would remind the Committee that in peace we have never had more than half a million volunteers. One year of conscription brings in 250,000 men; 1,000,000 men is therefore equivalent to all the volunteers we are likely to get plus two years' conscription. We are entitled, I think, to some indication of what the Actuary was told to assume when he gave that figure, because, presumably, he did not just think of a number and halve it. I have endeavoured to list some of the claims. I have not succeeded in mentioning all of them. But the point I want to make is that nobody who is not in the full confidence of the Government knows what these claims add up to, but the thing I would stake my life on is, that they do add up to a great deal more than our real resources in 1948. 'The things I have mentioned are thoroughly desirable' in themselves, and many of the things I have not mentioned are as well. We ought to have them all. But there are very good examples of the absurd consequences that do arise when we consider these items purely in isolation. As an example, in the year 1920–21 there was a basic wage commission in Australia presided over by Mr. Justice Piddington—

The Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is really going too far. I must ask him to confine himself to the Resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel Birch: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. It is the same point which I was making: the conclusion that wages should in the aggregate be very much greater than the national income.

The Chairman: That question has no relevance to the Resolution before the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Birch: I would conclude by saying that we on this side of the Committee feel that the people of this country should have some kind of indication of where they are being led. What we want, in fact, is a Government plan which will reconcile what is possible and what is desirable in the national interest. If we


do not get that and the Government go on blundering forward into inflation—

The Chairman: I am sorry, but I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I want to ask whoever replies for the Government if these two parts of the Resolution have any bearing upon possible Amendments in Committee, which have been indicated in the course of the Second Reading Debate. I would first draw attention to Paragraph A of the Resolution in which these words appear:
 so however, that, if the Treasury, by order, under the new Act made with a view to maintaining a stable level of employment, increase the rate of any contribution for which the Exchequer supplement is payable, they shall have power also to increase by the order the rate of the Exchequer supplement for that contribution, but in such manner as not to affect (except so far as appears to them expedient for convenience of calculation) the proportion which the rate of the supplement bears to that of the contribution.
I should like to have confirmation or otherwise that that means that any Amendment moved in Committee, which would have the effect of increasing the necessary contributions in order to make the scheme actuarially sound, would be covered by this Resolution which, in the words to which I have referred, would enable, under authority already given, corresponding and proportionate increases in the Government supplement for these contributions. I think that it will be clear to my right hon. Friend that I have in mind points which I referred to in the Second Reading Debate. I do not propose to repeat them, but I want to indicate that they were as possible Amendments to Clause 12 and Clause 61. Clause 12 (1) provides that unemployment benefit shall cease, except for a slight calculation in the Subsection, after 180 days. Therefore', it is clear that, if the Committee wish that period to be extended, either indefinitely or by some period which to them seems fit, the contributions would have to be increased so as to keep the scheme actuarially sound, and the Government would have power under this Resolution to increase the Treasury supplement in proportion to that increase.
Then I would. like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Paragraph B:

 To authorise the repayment to the National Insurance Fund out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required in accordance with the provisions of the new Act for the payment of unemployment benefit to insured persons for days of unemployment occurring within a period of five years beginning with a day appointed under that Act, being days for which they are not entitled to such benefit by reason only of having exhausted their right thereto under that Act.

7.45 p.m.

The intention of that paragraph is to provide such moneys as may be expendable under Clause 61. It seems to me to follow that, supposing the Committee increase the period of 180 days, the cost, under Clause 61 would to that extent be reduced. The number of additional days to be on covenanted benefit would increase the charge for covenanted benefit and. correspondingly reduce the charge for uncovenanted benefit under Clause 61; so that an increase in the number of days under Clause 12, provided it did not last for longer than five years, would not mean any increased charge at all. I should like to be confirmed on that point, if it is right, and criticised if it is not. The reason why I am so anxious about this should be apparent, I think, from the Motion which I put on the Order Paper, and which Mr. Speaker did not call because, no doubt, he thought it was unnecessary. Such an instruction would have been necessary unless the Money Resolution were wide enough to cover any such proposed Amendment, and I take it that the inference to be drawn from Mr. Speaker not calling it is that it was not necessary for the reasons which I have given. I want only to be satisfied that, in dealing with this Money Resolution and not givng it to the Government in the form in which it is on the Order Paper, we are not precluding ourselves, in any way, from doing what the Lord Privy Seal said he wanted us all to do when we came to the Committee stage, and that is to co-operate together in order to remove any defects in the Bill. I think myself— I do not want to make a speech about it I have done that already—that there is in these two Clauses a very serious defect in the Bill—a whole range of unlimited poverty for which this Measure of Social Security makes no provision at all. I want to have an opportunity in the Committee stage of amending, curing and removing that omission, and I would like to


be satisfied that this Money Resolution has been drawn widely enough to enable that. to be done, if the Committee are able to do it.

Major Legge-Bourke: I, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Flint (Lieut.-Colonel N. Birch), hope to speak on the more humanitarian side of this great Bill. I would like to confine myself to offering the Government a suggestion or two which I hope will be of assistance to them in cutting down some of the expenses in so far as it affects the Exchequer contribution. I have worked out, using the Government Actuary's figures, that it should be possible largely to meet some of the complaints aired during the Debate, by offering some option as to the benefits to be enjoyed by various classes of people, by paying them instead of their national health benefit, a sum towards the end of their lives. I have worked it out on the basis of 20 per cent. electing to take this option, and that they did not take the option until the age of 35. As a result of the option these people would have the right, instead of getting the benefit of a national health service of 26s., of getting7s. 6d. per week for the last five years of their working lives. As a result, there would be a saving to the Exchequer, working on the very conservative estimate of the Government Actuary's figures that the average period of sickness is 3 weeks as opposed to 3½. On those figures the total saving over a period of 30 years— from 35 to 65 years of age—would be£92 million or more. I suggest that that saving could be utilised in several different ways, and, of course, it would be for the Government to decide which. I think myself probably the most attractive way to those who had elected to take this scheme, would be to pay a slightly, reduced contribution. I think that is one way in which it might be done.
Another way is that the balance might be paid out instead of the death grant, and actually on the figures of the people concerned between the ages mentioned, the figure would be about£25 per head. I do suggest to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that he should consider this, because I believe that some of the people who are, at the present moment, fighting rather shy of this whole idea, would be more inclined to welcome it, if they got

some option as to the sort of benefits they were going to enjoy. I think in particular the self-employed would rather jump at it, for the very good reason that a great many of them were not even voluntary contributors under the old scheme. I do believe that some of them would feel there was some opportunity here for them to use their discretion as to what they would do and what benefits they would get for themselves in the future. I am afraid I am not in entire agreement with those on this side of the House who consider the old age pensioners were receiving rather too much benefit under this Bill. I feel personally that the old age pensioner wants more protection than anybody, and, therefore, I do make the suggestion because I believe by beginning with the suggestion the Government would answer to a great extent the spinsters' complaint. It would provide some allowance for them in the last five years, from 55 to 60, and it is just a question of how much benefit is paid or what age should a start be made on this option as to whether or not the eventual benefit can be put up. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he tries to work out a similar scheme for the unemployed, because I believe there are some who have independent means of their own who would be prepared to run the risk of that. The result would be that not only these people would get the benefit, which they themselves had selected, but there would be a considerable saving to the Exchequer in that option. I do put it to the Government that they should examine this scheme and if possible give it some publicity, because I believe it would appeal to a great many of the public.

Miss Jennie Lee: I rise to call attention to a curious discrepancy in this Money Resolution, in dealing with the provision for retirement pension, and for unemployed workers. I feel that I could quite easily say any amount about the position of the old age pensioner, and the retired worker, but I do not want to raise new matters particularly affecting sick people or children. I hope I am not unduly fearful or suspicious in asking the Minister if he would be kind enough, in replying, just to say one word more, in regard to the financial provisions we are now making for unemployed workers. On the Second Reading of the Bill—a Debate to which I do not wish to return—the Minister was good enough to give


a personal pledge that after the 180 days of covenanted benefit were over, there could not possibly be under this Bill a return to the means test or to "not genuinely seeking work." If we on this side of the House, in addition to the assurance given by the Minister person ally could also be told that, after consultation, the Law Officers of the Crown endorsed and supported his point of view, then I think we would feel very happy indeed in regard to the joint financial provisions of the Bill. I raise this point because, in many ways, the unemployed worker is in the most vulnerable position of all. If economic circumstances go badly, there are always many jealous eyes turned in his direction, wondering if he has got something out of the public purse to which he is not entitled. These jealous eyes are usually turned in the direction of people who work for their daily bread, have no savings and find themselves in a position of acute mental anxiety, for they are working within a period of 180 days, after which they feel rather bewildered and unsure. There were many other points I intended to raise, but I ask the Minister to add to his personal assurance that of the Law Officers of the Crown, that in the working of the Bill, for which we are now supplying the essential money, there will be no recurrence of the means test and "not genuinely seeking work."

8.0 p.m.

Major Niall Macpherson: I rise to put a very different aspect of the. point already put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He has asked, with regard to Clauses 12 and 61, whether the additional expense that may be required by Committee Amendments is covered in this Resolution. I should. like to ask the same question from the point of view of the self-employed man. In Table 1, I see that the contribution from the self-employed person is virtually just under one-half of what it is in respect of the combined contributions of the employed person and the employer. It may not be possible to alter that, but I should like to know whether, under Table 2, any additional benefits that may be considered in Committee and passed will enter into this sum of£3,000,000 per month. I have in mind, particularly, the question of the 24 days waiting period for sickness benefit for a self-employed person being reduced to

the same level as that for an employed person. So far as I can see from the figures in the Actuary's Report, the proportion of the total contribution borne by the Exchequer in respect of the employed person is 21.4 per cent., whereas in respect of the self-employed person it is only 16.4 per cent. It seems that there is a strong case that this should be equalised. If the Exchequer paid the whole of the 4½d. difference, the proportion would be only about 23 per cent., and still the total contribution in respect of the self-employed person would be far lower than it is in respect of the employed person.
I strongly urge the Minister, in making his regulations in connection with this matter, to have regard to this point, and I ask for an assurance that any improvements agreed to in respect of the self-employed person—and if there were a free vote in Committee I am sure, that there would be agreement—are fully covered by this Money Resolution. Paragraph C (b) of the Money Resolution deals with supplementary payments towards retirement pensions. Here, also, we have to cater for something that should be added by regulation in order to equalise the treatment that is given to those who are just under 65 and that which is given to those who are over 65. Under the Bill, a man who is just under 65 would have to work for 10 years before he. would be entitled to the extra 16s. That seems to be a real hardship, and one which, I hope, the Minister will ease. The same applies to the non-contributory pensioner. A man would have to contribute for 10 years before being entitled to pension at the full rate, otherwise he would get only the. present amount.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): Does the hon. and gallant Member mean the extra 2s. a week?

Major Macpherson: No, the extra 16s. a week. I would commend to the Minister's consideration—.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I would like to get this point clear. When the hon. and gallant Member refers to 16s. I presume he means the difference between the basic 10s. and the 26s. In what circumstances does he not think we shall increase it?

Major Macpherson: It seems to me that it is left to the discretion of the Minister to make regulations regarding the circumstances in which a person can have a supplementary payment. I consider that the difference between the treatment given to a man now entitled to his old age contributory pension and a man entitled to his old age non-contributory pension, and those who are just not entitled to. it yet, is very marked indeed, and I would like an assurance that this will be amply covered under the terms of this Resolution.
As regards the question of the cost to the Exchequer of the whole scheme, it may be that the national wealth will increase at the rate at which it has increased in the past. But it is difficult to say to what extent that was a function of the increase in population. There is little possibility of saying whether that is so or not, but if it is not so what will happen is that we shall be asking the next generation to shoulder our burden for old age pensions. We shall be asking them to supplement our retirement pensions, instead of financing them ourselves, here and now, by a fund which could be set up to cover the disparity between the cost to the Exchequer now and the cost in 1978.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like to draw attention to a point which has not yet been raised on this Money Resolution, but before raising it I would like to make a general observation. I have listened to discussions on many Resolutions but this is the most striking, the most amazing that has ever come before a Committee of the whole House. We are accepting it in a matter of fact way which shows the development which has taken place in the social sense of the country. The Resolution says:
 That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as "the new Act ") to establish an extended system of national insurance providing pecuniary payments by way of unemployment benefit, sickess benefit, maternity benefit, retirement pension, widows' benefit, guardian's allowance and death grant, and to provide for the making of payments towards the cost of a national health service.…
If anyone cares to read the discussion which took place on the Money Resolution at the time when a pension of 5s. a week was proposed he will get an idea of the advance which has taken place. I would like to support the Members who have spoken from this side about unemploy-

ment benefit. I think there should be no uncovenanted benefit. According to the statements made continually by the Government, it is intended to fight for full employment. That being so, we should have no hesitation in making arrangements for nothing but covenanted benefit. We should not contemplate prolonged unemployment on a large scale, and if it is on a small scale it could be met easily out of covenanted benefit.. The Members who have raised this question have made a good point. I take it, from the way the Money Resolution is worded, that it will be possible to press, in Committee, for a 30s. a week old age pension. There is no reason why we should not do the best possible for the old age pensioners, especially as new sources of power are being developed to increase production which will ensure that we have the necessary finances.
The point I specially wished to raise was this: Will it be possible, on the Committee stage, to raise the question of the spinsters' pension, and the retirement of spinsters at an age lower than is provided for in the Bill? I ask the Financial Secretary to remember that this is a very pertinent question for many thousands of people in this country. Many hon. Members have time and again pledged support to the spinsters in the efforts which they have made, and these spinsters have worked hard for many years to try to get this consideration. I would like the Minister, when he replies, to say whether, under the point about retirement pensions, the Money Resolution is wide enough to allow of the spinsters' case being put in Committee and, if the Committee is agreeable, being granted. I conclude by referring again to the significance of this Money Resolution, what it stands for in the way of growth of social consciousness, and the Government's appreciation of that fact. I hope that not only will this Measure be carried, but many other supplementary Measures that will ensure the future health and well being of the people of this country.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Poole: There are one or two points on which I would like to have further enlightenment. On Wednesday last, when the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance moved the Second Reading of the Bill, I rose to interrupt him, but he was unwilling to give way, and as the


point which I wished to put had a very direct bearing on the financial provisions of the Bill, I wish to refer to it now. It has been raised during the Second Reading Debate, but it has not, in my opinion, received a satisfactory answer from the Government. In the Government Actuary's Report, in paragraph 17 (11), it is a question of an estimate of 8½ per cent. unemployed. I cannot see how it can possibly be estimated that we are going to have 1,600,000 unemployed if, as the Minister said in his speech, the Government are resolutely determined to have full employment. Before we agree to the Money Resolution, I think we are entitled to know on what basis that figure is made. It is a very big point in regard to the actual cost of the Bill.
During the Debate on Second Reading, the case of the self-employed man was referred to, and the Parliamentary Secretary stated that if self-employed persons were prepared to pay an additional contribution of 4½d., His Majesty's Government were prepared to look favourably upon an Amendment which might be placed on the Order Paper. I am not clear exactly how it is intended to find out whether the self-employed persons are prepared to pay or not, because self-employed persons are not a very highly organised body of people. I have been engaged in this sort of business all my life, and I have spent a weekend trying to find out to which body one could refer to discover whether they are willing or not to pay the extra amount. I find great difficulty in discovering a comprehensive body representing self-employed persons. I should be interested to know how the Minister proposes to fulfil that pledge which has been given.
The question of the use of the approved societies has been raised. In considering the cost of administering the scheme, is the right hon. Gentleman giving careful consideration to the cost of administering the sickness benefit? His advisers will have told him that the administration of any other benefit is a perfectly simple matter, whereas the administration of sickness benefit is extremely difficult. The cost of establishing a claim and how to deal with it is a somewhat difficult problem. There is no doubt that, because they worked for a profit, the industrial group have brought the cost down to a very low level Does the right hon. Gentleman intend, or is he prepared, to

publish from time to time the cost of administering the scheme? Sir William Beveridge has said that he considers 30 per cent. would be reasonable. We know that the Prudential group have brought the cost down to 23 and 22 per cent. I think we are entitled to know the cost of administering this scheme. One of the criteria by which the new scheme will be judged will be not only whether it is as efficient and humane as the present organisation, but whether it is cheaper than the present organisation. The right hon. Gentleman has to build up in less than two years an organisation capable of dealing with sickness benefit throughout the whole community. I think we should have answers to those questions before we agree to the Money Resolution.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. John McKay: I would like briefly to discuss the question of uncovenanted benefit, which has been raised in this Debate. I think we all realise that the benefits set out at the moment are based on the actuarial reports, and that if the money does not come from the Exchequer it must come from contributions. The point I want to make is that in the case of unemployment benefit it ought to be paid, regardless of the time, as covenanted benefit, but there is one thing that I want to emphasise in connection with this Money Resolution. In the case of unemployment benefit given to an unemployed man after his covenanted benefit has expired, I think that every hon. Member on this side will agree that whatever inquiries may have to be made when a man reaches that stage, there ought to be no question whatever of dealing with one man in one way and another man in another way. I can understand, as a result of the explanation that has been given, that when this stage is reached, the industrial conditions of the area may have to be taken into consideration, but those industrial conditions will apply to all men in the same grade of work, and I cannot see how any differentiation can be made between one man and another when it is a question of considering uncovenanted unemployment benefit. I am sure that if it is found that in the administration of these provisions a difference is, being made between one man and another, there will be a serious growth of feeling against the people who are administering the job. I


am not quite happy with regard to the general position.
We have all agreed that something had to be done, we are all satisfied that the Minister has done all he could do with the finances that were coming into the funds, but what has rather amazed me, in a way, is the general position admitted from all sides of the House, and by every Member in the House, that this particular problem is one so serious that we must deal with it in a very effective way on this occasion.
When we examine the position we find that it is apparently accepted by this House that the pound today will only purchase what could have been purchased for 8s. 4d. in 1914, so that the 26s. in benefits which we are giving in this Bill to the unemployed man is equal in purchasing power to 10s. 10d. in 1914. The 42s. which we are giving to the married couple is equivalent, I think, to 17s. 6d. The question then arises, Have we done all that we could do on this particular matter, knowing the urgency of it, knowing how it hits every family in the land, knowing that ultimately every one of us will meet that situation where we have either to get health benefit, unemployment benefit, or old-age benefit? Are we really satisfied, can we glow with enthusiasm over the results of our negotiations? At this time, after all our agitations, is this all the benefit we can give?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member is going rather wide now, and should return to the Resolution under discussion.

Mr. McKay: As I understand it, the cost of this Bill is practically 6 per cent. of the expected income of the country. I think myself that surely we can do more than that. Even if we cannot I think we could get more than that into the fund in a more equitable way. The method by which we get the money into the fund is not satisfactory. If we are in a war we get the money in, far more money than is needed for a case like this, but in my view we get it in a more justifiable way. We get it in largely on the ability to pay—

The Deputy-Chairman: Again the hon Member is dealing with matters outside the scope of the Resolution.

Mr. McKay: I will conclude. While making this effort we hope it will improve in the future, and the only way I can see that it will improve is by getting more goods produced more cheaply, and thus reducing the cost of living.

Major Bruce: The benefits conferred by this Bill are such an advance over anything that has preceded it in this country that one is perhaps a little reluctant to say very much in criticism of them, but I do think that one should bear in mind, when one surveys them, that in the meantime the cost-of-living index and the cost of living generally have risen considerably.
Under Clause 40 of the Bill, and I believe within the ambit of this Resolution, it is provided that the Minister shall review the rates and amounts of benefit in relation:
"(a) to the circumstances at the time of insured persons in Great Britain, including in particular the expenditure which is necessary for the preservation of health and working capacity; and
(b) to any changes in those circumstances since the rates and amounts of benefit were laid down by this Act or any Act amending it and to the likelihood of future changes."
When introducing the Bill on the Second Reading the Minister said:
 The House will be aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has expressed the Government's intention to hold the cost of living at about 31 per cent. over the September, 1939, level. We decided, therefore, to review the leading rates proposed in the White Paper and in the Beveridge Report on the basis of an overall addition of 31 per cent, instead of 25 per cent."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1946: Vol. 418, c. 1750.]
I think many of us in this House must be aware that the cost of living in this country has in fact increased considerably beyond 31 per cent., and it is, therefore, perhaps opportune that we should note that the official Ministry of Labour cost-of-living index is based on rather obsolete data. According to the Ministry's own publication it is intended to show
 the average percentage increase in the cost of maintaining unchanged the standard of living prevailing in working class families prior to August, 1914, no allowance being made for any changes in the standard of living since that date, or for any economies or readjustments in consumption and expenditure since the outbreak of war.
I would like an assurance from the Minister that, when the time comes for the benefits to be reviewed, they shall be reviewed in the light of any changed cir


cumstances, particularly those reflected in any revised cost-of-living index which the Government may bring into operation. It may well be that in the passage of the next few months the cost-of-living index and its whole basis may be reviewed. In that event I would like to ask the Minister's intentions about the benefits contained in this Bill and covered by this Resolution.
I would like to concur very largely with what was said by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) with regard to the benefits payable to old age pensioners. The 26s. under the new Bill is a very considerable increase over anything the old age pensioner has had before, but I do think, in view of the present cost of living, that if it were possible in the near future to increase it to 30s. it would be a tremendous advantage to them and something which the country as a whole owes to them.
I would now like to pass to the position of the self-employed person, already touched upon in several quarters of this House from both the Government benches and the Opposition benches. It is quite clear, I think, that at the moment the self-employed person cannot expect the identical benefits that are accorded to other sections of the community, at any rate, on what are popularly called conservative methods of computation where benefits are in any way related to the rates of contribution. I think it would be most inequitable, by conservative standards, if that should be so. The self-employed person contributes initially 5s. 9d. a week with 6s. 1d. as the permanent rate, as against an aggregate of 8s. 5d. initial rate and 8s. 9d. ultimate rate to be contributed in respect of the employed person. Therefore, it is quite clear that on a basis of contribution there should possibly be some inequality in regard to the benefit received. The obstinate fact remains, however, that the benefit under the sickness part of the Bill is not much use to the self-employed person at the present time. He gets the same benefits as the self-employed person in regard to retirement and all the other contingencies covered by the Bill, and I think, frankly, that he does very well out of it.
8.30 p.m.
On this one point regarding sickness, it has been generally agreed that there

ought to be provision whereby a self-employed man can participate, after a far shorter period of sickness than 24 days. It may well be that the Minister can tell us that it will be possible upon a contributory basis, but I should like to hear his answer to the actuarial calculation which came from the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton). I should be very pleased to see these people brought, in the same way as the others, into the sickness part of the Bill. The position of spinsters has already been touched upon at some length. I would like to point out that they do not receive all the benefits to which their contributions entitle them. Certain types of benefit for which they pay are denied to them as a matter of custom, or respect ability For example, they pay in part for the motherhood benefits that the married woman gets. I would ask the Minister for information about the position of the Service men. I do not know whether the matter has been mentioned, but Clause 56 does not make the position of the Service man very clear.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the hon. and gallant Member that he cannot discuss the Bill as a whole, but only what is contained in the Financial Resolution. The points he is raising are for the Committee stage of the Bill.

Major Bruce: May I ask a question on a matter which I think does come under the Financial Resolution, since it is concerned with benefit that is to be paid? I want to know whether the Serviceman who pays the normal contributions and who by reason of his service in the Forces, becomes entitled to the ordinary Service pension is entitled also, as of right, to receive the benefit for which, he pays by his contributions under the Bill. Finally, I ask whether any special arrangements are intended to provide for any unestablished civil servants. who are compelled to retire at the age of 60, at which age it is difficult for them to get employment. Subject to those observations I support the Money Resolution, and I sincerely hope that it will be agreed to.

Mr. Walker: There is a point which I am anxious to get quite right. I am sure it affects a very large number of deserving people. I refer to the subject of non-contributory pensions


and I would quote from the summary of the main provisions of the Bill, paragraph 39. This paragraph states:
 Persons aged 70 and over, who are drawing non-contributory pensions when the new scheme starts, will have these pensions increased.
It is the next sentence about which 1 am concerned and which I wish to get clear. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to give me a perfect assurance about it. If he does, I shall be far more enthusiastic about the Bill than I should be in other circumstances. The sentence says:
 Anyone who has reached the age of 55 when the new pensions begin to be paid will qualify, subject to his means, for a non-contributory pension, on reaching 70, if he or she is not qualified for a retirement pension.
That is very important. People have written to me asking to know where they stand. They have arrived at the age of 60, 65 or 66 and they have never been insured under the old Act. They want to know where they come in under the new Act and are to receive 26s. a week. That will be something for nothing. We are often charged by our opponents with giving something for nothing. Well, here is something for nothing—I was afraid I would be called to Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member's fear has been realised. He cannot discuss the provisions of the Bill in this Debate, apart from what is in the Money Resolution. He appears to have been aware that he was out of Order, so perhaps he will now remain in Order.

Mr. Walker: I want to know whether my construction of the paragraph to which I have referred is correct. If it is correct—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the Minister would be out of Order if he tried to reply to the question.

Mr. Walker: I am sorry that I have got so far out of Order, but I believe the Minister will grasp what I am trying to say.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Several hon. Members opposite have been fortunate enough to make their points before they were ruled out of Order. An hon. Friend of mine tried to do the same, but as his point perhaps took longer to develop he

was not so fortunate. I am sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be more disappointed even than the rest of us that the Ruling of your predecessor, Mr. Beaumont, prevented him, upon a Bill of this magnitude, giving to us and the country what I know he would like to give, the general financial background.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): There will be a Budget in April.

Mr. Stanley: There was a Budget last November, when we asked the right hon. Gentleman the same sort of thing. He said, "No." The same thing may happen on next Budget day. The right hon. Gentleman sits there like a coy but nubile maiden, archly picking the daisy and saying: "This year, next year, some time, never." Unfortunately, it is always "never." As it is not in Order to discuss a matter of such great importance upon this Financial Resolution there is only one point to which I would refer. This is a particularly difficult Financial Resolution to understand, owing to the contributions from the Exchequer as well as the contributions from the individual. I am afraid its effect, if it is passed, may be extremely restrictive upon the Debate in Committee. I cannot see that it will be possible even to discuss any Amendment in Committee which would tend to increase the aggregate contribution from the Exchequer, as set out in Tables I and II.

Mr. S. Silverman: Surely not. I think it was made clear that the Treasury can, by Order, increase the contribution from everybody else, but if it does, the Money Resolution gives power to increase the Treasury supplementation proportionately.

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the Minister will resolve this wrangle. I am not sure that that is so. I thought there were these restrictive words:
 By Order… made with a view to maintaining a stable level of employment.
I thought that provision was only to enable the Treasury subsequently to carry out the suggestion thrown out in the Bill, and developed in the Second Reading Debate, that during a time of prospective slump the contributions would be decreased and during a time of boom they would be increased. It did not seem to me to deal with the case I had in mind, a desire of hon. Members in the Commit-


tee on the Bill to make some alteration in the scheme which would have the effect of increasing benefits and so increasing contributions. I have in mind several points that have been made by hon. Members on both sides, and particularly something which was said by the Lord Privy Seal when he was winding up this Debate. He referred very briefly to the coming report of the Monckton Committee in answer to one of my hon. Friends who had called attention to the big disparities now existing between benefits under the Bill and benefits under Industrial Accident insurance.
The right hon. Gentleman certainly told us that it would be possible to take the result of the report of that Committee to increase benefits under the Bill, or bring them into line with benefits under another enactment. Many hon. Members have been concerned with those who have finished what in the old days we used to call the uncovenanted benefit. It would seem to me that under this Financial Resolution it is quite impossible to raise that matter upon the Committee stage, except on the basis of an extra contribution from the individual and from the employer, to cover it. I am not even sure that that would be in Order; perhaps the Minister would be the proper person to answer me.
Finally, there is the self-employed man, and the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Gentleman, when he was winding up the other night, that some alteration might be made. It would seem that an alteration of the waiting period in that case could only be made if an increase of contribution more than covered the increased cost coming from the benefits.
As we go through this Bill, there may be many other cases where it will, in fact, be impossible to do what the Prime Minister asked Members of the Committee to do and to try and improve it. It was unnecessary to include these two Tables in the Financial Resolution. In doing so the Government will have made a Debate upon the Committee stage extremely difficult, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if that is the case, if he will give us a pledge that we shall be able to discuss upon Committee stage the many matters raised by hon. Members on all sides of the House during Second Reading, and if it would not be worth while to consider an Amendment of the Financial Resolution

which would admit the figures. After all, the right hon. Gentleman has a majority behind him which will ensure that we shall not run away from the main financial principles of the Bill. If he were able to do that, it would enable us, perhaps, to make small Amendments which might still be of value.

8.45 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The hon. and gallant Member who began this discussion on the Money Resolution, as well as the right hon. Gentleman who has just resumed his seat, have made another attempt to get us to accept total expenditure under this scheme, instead of a general commitment of the Government. The Prime Minister referred to that last Friday, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal referred to it in his closing speech on the Second Reading of the Bill. I wish that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would be frank when they are continually referring to the expenditure under this Bill, and try to relate it to others. Are they suggesting that this scheme, on its own, is one which costs too much and should be rejected? I gather that that is not the position. If so, I can only say that there has been a statement by the Prime Minister, and also by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, that, in due course and at the proper time, which is not now, there will be a full statement from the Government of the total commitments under their programme and the relation of the commitments upon social security to the others. There is one aspect of this Bill to which the Government have given very careful consideration, and though it has come before us in what has been a short time since we came into office, all of it has been very exhaustively considered. We are satisfied that the cost represented by this scheme is one that the country can carry.
I will now deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), as to whether it would be in Order for him to move the. Amendment which it is clear from his speech he would desire to move on the Committee stage. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is here and has a special responsibility in regard to the Financial Resolution, advises me that it would be in Order. Two or three other Members


referred to this Clause, and I presume therefore that I shall be in Order in replying to them. When I spoke on the Second Reading I explained what was meant by Clause 61 of this provision for an extended unemployment benefit. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne spoke in the Debate the next night and questioned whether the words used would be interpreted in the way the Minister interpreted them. He suggested, on reading the words in Clause 61, that those words could be interpreted as including the power to apply a means test for those who applied for extended benefits. I say very frankly that that was not the intention. If, on examination of the words, that was found to be possible, we should change the words. I have not had an opportunity since of consulting the Law Officers, but may 1 cite something in the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, which makes clear what we have in mind? If hon. Members will turn to the Bill and paragraph 10 of the Financial Memorandum, they will see that Clause 61 provides for a period of five years, that where an applicant has exhausted his insurance benefit the cost of the extended benefits made under this provision is to be met by the Exchequer. That makes it perfectly clear that we have benefit and not subsistence in mind.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think that is perfectly clear, but the difficulty does not arise there but in the fact that the Minister cannot act at all, until the local tribunal has made its recommendation, and the local tribunal, in making its recommendations, must have regard to the particular circumstances of the applicant. What worried me was this: If the particular circumstances of the applicant did not include his means, what did the words mean?

Mr. Griffiths: If I may refer again to Clause 61, I think it says that the Minister may make regulations. I said, quite frankly, what we have in mind, and if these words were held to be such as to give any possibility of applying a means test., then the words should be changed. I think that that covers the point raised by several hon. Members. We will leave the merits or demerits of the question as to whether there should be this provision, to the Committee stage.

One or two Members have raised the question of the self-employed, to which I would like to refer, because there has been a suggestion, for example, that the Exchequer contribution is less just to the self-employed than it is to the employed contributor. Actually, the position is that the Exchequer contribution on each individual's contribution is fixed on a basis which has been accepted in the past, and which has been adopted in this Bill. First there is unemployment benefit. Class 2 self-employed contributors are not covered for unemployment benefit for obvious reasons. It will be appreciated that for unemployment benefit the cost is divided between the three parties equally, in the existing scheme as well as in the new one. The cost of it is divided as to one-third from the insured contributor, one-third from the employer, and one-third from the State, and that has been the arrangement ever since unemployment insurance began. We have, there fore, incorporated that division of the cost between the three parties into this new scheme. In the case of the other benefits—sickness, retirement pension, etc.—the Exchequer contribution is one-sixth of the contribution of the others.
The proportion of contributions, there fore, towards the benefits for which both classes are equally insured is the same. What makes the contribution of the Exchequer towards Class 1 bigger than the other are two factors: first of all, that it is a proportion of the contribution paid by both the employer and the employee, and, secondly, it includes a contribution in respect of unemployment for that class for which the other class is not covered and, therefore, makes the total a little different, but the proportion in respect of each benefit is actually the same. I think that makes it perfectly clear that there is no discrimination in this Bill between the proportion of contribution made by the Exchequer towards the employed and the self-employed person. A point was raised by an hon. Member opposite about old age pensioners which I am afraid I did not quite catch and, as he is not present now, perhaps when he reads these words, he will come and discuss the matter with me.
Another question raised was the estimate for unemployment in this scheme. The Actuary was instructed to base the calculations upon a notional figure of 8½ per cent. unemployment. This Bill is


the consequence of the Beveridge Report, of the White Paper, and of the discussions, and all the way through we have accepted what the Beveridge Report suggested, and the Coalition White Paper accepted—this notional figure of 8½ per cent. I would more than hope—indeed, I am confident—that we can hold un employment at less than 8½ per cent. I would express the view that this country cannot afford anything like 8½ per cent. of unemployment. At the same time, since the Beveridge Report and the Coalition White Paper thought it prudent to accept this notional figure, we have accepted it too. Anyhow that will be on the safe side, but I would call attention to the fact that there is a provision in this Bill by which at the end of five years the Minister is under an obligation to review the whole of the provisions, including the provisions for unemployment, for sickness, and so on and it is upon this basis that the Bill is drafted. I shall, if I am still privileged to be Minister—or if I may speak for my possible successor—look forward after five years of a Labour Government with real confidence to reducing that figure of 8½ per cent.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me which body I was to consult in regard to the self-employed on this question of the 24 waiting days. I think it was the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) who suggested the other day that this further penalising of the self-employed man was an impossible business. The actual truth is that this is a really serious problem, financial and administrative. Class 2 is a very big class; it includes the coster and the barrister, in fact, everybody not under a contract of service. Sir William Beveridge suggested that the waiting period should be 13 weeks. The Coalition Government brought it down to four weeks. I have been amazed to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite, for I did not write the White Paper but right hon. Gentlemen opposite had a hand in it, and this four weeks' waiting period, which shocks them now, was put into the White Paper by them in 1944, when they had an overwhelming majority and when none of them protested against it. I think the little man is entitled to know that, too.

Mr. Oliver Pooler: As a professional insurance man, may I say that I never made the suggestion? I know the

administrative difficulties just as well as does the Minister—

Mr. Griffiths: There are administrative difficulties and, of course, this class varies much more widely in its circumstances than Class 1. The Committee will have. heard what the Parliamentary Secretary said the other night about this problem. I am afraid there is not a single organisation which can speak in a representative capacity for 2,500,000 people who vary so widely, but there are ways in which we can sound opinion upon this matter, and I think, very largely, we shall find that opinion reflected in the opinions of hon. Members when we come to deal with the question.
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Poole) asked about the administration and cost of sickness benefit. I do not want to add anything to what I have said be fore on this matter. Sickness benefit will require very careful handling. I will tell the Committee one thing we are doing. Sickness benefit now does not provide for sickness. One hon. Member said, "You are putting the relieving officers on the road; why do you not compensate them? "Why am I putting them on the road? Because by raising sickness benefit I am rescuing the sick from pauperism. The claim is that thousands of relieving officers will lose their jobs because so much of their time now is taken up in augmenting sickness benefit. I know perfectly well, because I am a worker my self, that home service can be valuable. I know that it can also be a nuisance— it all depends on how it is administered. Visits to a working-class home are a blessing or a curse, depending upon who makes the visit and on the spirit in which the visit is made. Therefore, we shall provide the wisest possible administration, including a discriminating, humane home service, because that is essential.
The hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) asked me one or two questions. I am not going to argue with him as to whether the present cost-of-living index figure is good or bad. That has been discussed for a long time and has been the subject of an examination by the Ministry of Labour. Let me, however, give him the under taking for which he asks. If, by the time I come to make my review in five years, the Ministry of Labour has adopted, with the approval of the House,


a new cost-of-living index figure, I shall accept that fully as a basis upon which I can make my review.
Let me make two points on the questions asked me about the non-contributory pensioners—the old Lloyd George pensioners. There is a provision by which those over 55 when the new scheme begins—who, therefore, will not be able to put in the 10 years' qualification before they are 65—will come under the old Lloyd George Act, if I may use that phrase. The Beveridge Report and the Coalition White Paper suggested that when the new scheme came in, the old Act should cease, and all people outside the scheme who could not qualify should get assistance pensions from the Assistance Board. I took the view myself, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer joined me in that view, that we ought to continue the old Act for those who could not come within the 10 years' qualifying period of the new scheme. The position, therefore, will be that those who are over 55 when the scheme starts will retain the old provision for ten years. There is a lot of sentiment attached to this.

9.0 p.m.

As to the non-contributory pensions for the over 70's, if persons now 70 and over are receiving the full 10s. under the non contributory scheme, they will receive the full new benefit—that is if they receive 1os., now they will get 26s. The non contributory pension differs from the contributory pension in one respect. Under the contributory pension schemes a person qualifies for 1os. or does not qualify, there is no sliding scale. There is a sliding scale under the old Act. What we propose to do is to modify that to a new scale and therefore those who get 1os. now will get 26s. and a couple getting 1os. each will get 42s. and those who get less under the old Lloyd George Act, will get a modified amount. I hope I have made that clear.

Mr. Popplewell (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West): Could the right hon. Gentleman.explain that point? Under the non-contributory scheme there was an income allowance of£49 1os. before the sliding scale. Will there be any difference in that allowance of income?

Mr. Griffiths: What we propose to do is to use that income and apply it to the

new scale of pensions. That has been applied now to a scale which begins at 1os. and goes down.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Could the Minister make clear to the Committee whether, when we get upstairs—no doubt we will be meeting each other upstairs and I do not want any misunderstanding—the Opposition and hon. Members on all sides will be able to consider this matter freely, or will they find when they propose alternative benefits on contributions that they will be tied to the Financial Resolution, and their liberty of action thereby removed? If that happens the taking of this Bill upstairs is a mockery.

Mr. Griffiths: Upstairs, we shall be bound by the Financial Resolution.

Mr. Butler: I must press the point. Will it mean that it will not be possible for independent Members of His Majesty's Opposition, in view of the fact of the manner in which the Government have drawn the Resolution, to propose any alteration?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): The right hon. Gentleman is an old hand at procedure, and he knows that the very nature and necessary purpose of a Financial Resolution is to circumscribe, to some extent, proceedings in Committee. Otherwise we should never put forward Financial Resolutions. Already a number of particular points have been made clear by the Minister. The hon Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), for instance, raised the matter of extension of non-covenanted benefits. It would be perfectly in Order to extend that, but the Financial Resolution means what it says, and is introduced for the purpose of preventing any runaway Amendment to the Bill in such a fashion as to defeat the purpose here set down.

Mr. Stanley: I do not quite understand that. Surely a Money Resolution either prevents any Amendment which adds even a pound or two to the sum set out or does not. It cannot be that it pre vents a big change but does not prevent a small one. I cannot see how, under this Financial Resolution, an extension of this uncovenanted benefit would be in Order.

Mr. Dalton: I do not think the Committee will wish me. continually to. be


riposting on these points, which have been explained by my. right hon. Friend, but I will repeat what has been said. So far as the period of unemployment benefit is concerned, it will be in Order—and this answer is with the authority of the Law Officers; I was asked that, and I am giving a reply in the terms in which I was asked—for an Amendment to be moved to extend that period, the effect of which Amendment would be to throw a certain cost upon the Fund, and remove it from the Exchequer. It is no use for hon. Members opposite to suppose having passed the Money Resolution as it is that it means nothing. It means what such Resolutions always mean. It means that it limits the field of debate with a view to limiting the field of the extension of the burden falling on the Exchequer.

Mr. Butler: This is really an impossible position. The Government take the view that it is possible, under concessions, given, in a Minister's speech, to his supporters, to extend the period of un-covenanted benefit which will impose an unknown charge on the Exchequer. [Hon. Members: "No."] I am asking, If the period under the method of Clause 61 is to be extended—and reading Para graph 10 on page iii of the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill, where the charge on the Exchequer is unknown— I want to know whether the words of the Minister mean that an unknown charge will be placed on the Exchequer. In fact, the charge on the Exchequer is un known. The charge on the Exchequer is inside paragraph 10 on page iii. The Minister is nodding his head. In the Chancellor's own words the operation of that benefit is to be extended.
Those of us who tried to guard the Unemployment Fund in the old days know that the great danger is the placing of unknown charges on the Unemployment Insurance Fund. We have replaced that Fund by another Fund. It will be dangerous if the Money Resolution is so drawn that an unknown charge can be placed on the Fund, by an extension of the period of benefit, which were the words used by the Chancellor. I would like a clear answer from the Government on what they mean by that. If we are to have an unknown charge, in the words of the Financial Memorandum, for an unknown period placed upon the Exchequer, and the Financial

Resolution does not safeguard that position, why should it limit the Opposition and other Members in Committee upstairs from suggesting for example that the rates for a widow with three children, to which I drew attention in my Second Reading speech, should not also be extended? Why should it be possible to extend the period of unemployment benefit in certain circumstances, but not the rates for the widow in certain circumstances? If the answer is clear, my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side will be perfectly satisfied. If there is a leak in this Financial Resolution we shall not be satisfied, and we shall continue to discuss it.

Mr. Dalton: I will have one more shot at trying to make it clear. I have done my best but my best cannot have been good enough to make it clear. My hon. Friend was developing the argument not as to what was in Order but what was acceptable, and the right hon. Gentleman was seeking to develop not the argument with which I was dealing, as to whether certain Amendments would be in Order if moved in Committee, but whether, if moved, they would be accepted. I have not committed the Government, and I shall not commit the Government, to accept any Amendments of any. character. What 1 was seeking to indicate was that certain Amendments would be in Order to be moved in Committee. It would then be for the Committee to consider whether or not they should be accepted. What I was trying to indicate was that the proposal to extend the period of unemployment benefit would be in Order. I did not say it would be accepted, neither "Yes" nor "No." I say it would be in Order to move it, to debate it, and in Order to vote upon it in Committee. It would have the effect, if it were carried, of placing to that extent a charge which, as the Bill is now drawn, falls upon the Exchequer, and it is, of course, an uncertain sum which falls upon the Exchequer in the sense that we do not know how many people are going to be unemployed. Therefore, it is an unknown charge and it would be in Order to move that Amendment in Committee.
With regard to other Amendments, it will be in Order to move Amendments relating to rates of benefit. That will be quite in Order.

Mr. Butler: Under the Financial Resolution?

Mr. Dalton: It will be in Order. In the last resort it is for the Chairman of the Standing Committee to say what is in Order, and it is perhaps rather presumptuous for me to be too dogmatic in the matter. The final interpretation of Order rests with the Chair, but that is my understanding of the matter, and the intention of the Government, in bringing the Financial Resolution, is to exclude from consideration in the Committee changes which would alter the Exchequer contribution in the two Schedules to the Bill. That is my view. It is perfectly in Order, as I understand it, in Committee for Amendments to be moved and debated relating to rates of benefit. If the results of Amendments moved in Committee should make it appear to the Government that there should be some change in the rates of Exchequer contribution then, greatly daring in the light of the little discussion we had the other night, I am advised it would be perfectly proper and possible to introduce a new Financial Resolution and to recommit the Bill in order to adjust the position. I hope I have succeeded in making the position clear. I have done my best.

Mr. Butler: I should like to express my appreciation of the Chancellor on this occasion. I think he has acquitted himself well. As far as I am concerned, I have no further points.

Mr. Dalton: Won on points.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BANK OF ENGLAND BILL

Order read for Consideration of Lords Amendments.

Ordered: '' That the Lords Amendments be now considered."— [Mr. Dalton.]

Clause 4.— (Treasury directions to the Bank and relations of the Bank with other Banks.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 9, leave out "may ".

9.15 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment was moved on behalf of the Government in another place, and I ask that the House shall agree with it. It is, indeed, a very small and, as I think, a totally unimportant Amendment. It transposes the word "may" from in front of the words: "think it necessary in the public interest" to a position in the rear of those words, and the sole purpose of this Amendment is to make it abundantly clear that the words "if they think it necessary in the public interest" govern both limits of the Clause. It was desired by certain noble Lords, the Government put it down and I hope the House will agree with it

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I think the right hon. Gentleman has given a wrong explanation of the origin of this Amendment. It is true that the Amendment appears a small one, and, indeed, it would have appeared to me, in other circumstances, to be an unnecessary one. When this Bill was in this House, we had a considerable discussion about this Clause, and I understood, and I am sure the Chancellor gave us to understand, that in this particular Clause the motive power had to come from the Bank of England, and that it was only if they moved, that the Clause could come into operation. I accepted that and was content. Unfortunately, when this matter came to be discussed in another place,, there was a slight breakdown in staff work between two right hon. Gentlemen, who, in discussing this particular Clause, within the space of an hour, gave two exactly contrary accounts of what it meant. One of them said quite definitely that it meant that the Government could instruct the Bank of England to take these powers; the other was equally definite that only the Bank of England could move on its own. It was, therefore, felt that, in order to clear up this slight misunderstanding, some alteration should be made in the wording of the Bill. I thought perhaps the House would like to hear the full story of it because, clearly the Chancellor felt he had not got the time to tell it all.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 10, after "interest ", insert "may."

Mr. Dalton:: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is consequential.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 22, at end, insert:

(" (4) If, at any time before any recommendations or directions are made or given in writing to a banker under the last fore going Subsection. the Treasury, certify that it is necessary in the public interest that the recommendations or directions should be kept secret, and the certificate is transmitted to the banker together with the recommendations or directions, the recommendations or directions shall be deemed, for the purpose of Section two of the Official Secrets Act, 1911, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to be a document entrusted in confidence to the banker by a person holding office under His Majesty; and the provisions of the Official Secrets Acts, 1911 to 1939, shall apply accordingly.
(5) Save as provided in the last foregoing Subsection, nothing in the Official Secrets Acts, 1911to 1939, shall apply to any request, recommendations or directions made or given to a banker under Subsection (3) of this Section")

9.19 p.m.

Mr. Dalton: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment was also moved by a representative of the Government in another place following upon certain discussions. In the Committee stage of the Bill in this House, the question arose whether a direction under Clause 4 (3) was a matter which could be publicised by the banker to whom it was delivered or not, and it was suggested that some Amendment should be put into the Clause to indicate the conditions under which such publication might take place. I was of the opinion that it was not necessary to amend the Bill in this regard, and said so, but some hon. Gentlemen on the other side desired that it should be amended and I undertook to consult with them. I did so, and further consultations took place when the Bill reached another place. Finally, it was agreed that an Amendment in the terms here set down should be moved. I do not think it is necessary to insert it; on the other hand, it gives the Government even greater and more drastic powers than it possessed in the first version of the Bill, and it is not, therefore, for me to refuse this added responsibility which is offered to me, in certain circumstances, of being given power to take proceedings under the Official Secrets Act against bankers, which is what the Amendment does. It is now laid down that the Treasury may indicate to a banker that it is against the public

interest for a direction issued to him to be published, and if, after they so indicate that to him, he does publish it, he becomes liable to penalties laid down in the Official Secrets Act.
As I said. when the matter was up in Committee, I do not imagine that this state of affairs is likely ever to arise. I judge that this power of forbidding publication would only be adopted in exceptional circumstances. I cited some when we were in Committee, such as inter national tension or other serious public circumstance. In this case, I would hope that any responsible banker would not need anything of this sort. Since, however, in another place, it was thought desirable to make this clear, and since the Amendment gives me greater powers, I do not refuse it, but ask the House to accept it.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman has been somewhat ingenuous. This Amendment, of course, gives him no new powers. Clearly, he had the powers already under the circumstances to which he referred—the possibility of some international crisis. He referred to the use of the Official Secrets Act when we were discussing this in Committee downstairs, and he must not, therefore, misrepresent us because no one on this side of the House would ever think for one moment of entrusting any farther powers to the right hon. Gentleman. That, I am afraid, is what the right hon. Gentleman has done and now it is too late. Seriously, we are grateful for this Amendment. We quite realise, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that there may be rare cases, when international complications may be involved, where publication would not be in the national interest, and no one would want to see publication. On the other hand, in the vast majority of cases it is only right that if a banker does receive an instruction of this kind from the Government, that that fact should be made public and that it should be known—

Mr. Dalton: He should have the right to make it public.

Mr. Stanley: He should have the right to make it public so that he could make it plain to his clients that what he is doing is at the behest of the Government. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the way he has explained the matter..

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — INVESTMENT (CONTROL AND GUARANTEES) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:

" That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the regulation of the borrowing and raising of money, the issue of securities, and the circulation of offers of securities for subscription, sale or exchange, to enable the Treasury to guarantee loans in certain circumstances, and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid it is expedient to authorise—

(a)the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any sums required for fulfilling a guarantee given under the said Act for the purpose of facilitating the reconstruction or development of an industry or part of an industry in Great Britain, so, however, that the aggregate capital amount of the loans guaranteed under the said Act in any one financial year (excluding any part of that amount which is guaranteed neither as to principal nor as to interest) does not exceed fifty million pounds;
(b)the payment into the Exchequer of any moneys paid in or towards repayment of any sum issued out of the Consolidated Fund as aforesaid and of so much of any sum adjudged to be paid on the summary conviction of a person for an offence under the said Act as may be specified in the said Act; and
(c)the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Treasury in the administration of the said Act."

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RICKETS

Motion made, and Question proposed "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Mathers.]

9.24 p.m.

Dr. Stephen Taylor: The subject I wish to raise this evening is one with which hon. Members on this side of the House in particular, are unfortunately only too well acquainted. Rickets is known to our Continental colleagues as "the English disease." It was first described by two English doctors in the 17th century. It was christened by an Englishman, Dr. Francis Glisson, in 1650. Its cause and method of prevention were elucidated in Sheffield by Sir Edward Mellanby, and our island had, in peacetime, the unenviable distinction of being a first-rate field laboratory for the study of rickets. Rickets is a disease of infants. Active rickets is rarely seen in children over two years of age. Its main feature is faulty formation of bone, a matter of particular importance as in the first two

years of life bone growth is most rapid and the skeleton for the future is being formed. It may, therefore, be lifelong. Rickets is not in itself fatal, but its presence increases the liability to infection, particularly infection of the lungs. Pneumonia is one of the main causes of death in infancy. Rickets differs from most other human ailments in that medical knowledge of it is practically complete.
We know what causes rickets, and we know how to prevent it. We have the material necessary to prevent it, yet it is not prevented. It is still with us. The latest and most reliable statistics that I have been able to obtain are those contained in the Ministry of Health Survey on Rickets published in March, 1944. This survey covers the whole country, and was made for the Ministry of Health by the British Paedriatric Association. What they found was briefly this. By X-ray tests, by examining wrists and the bones of the skull, it was found that about four per cent. of children under 18 months had or had had rickets. By ordinary direct medical examination— that is, by examining the wrists, the bones of the chest and of the legs—the figure was about 12 per cent., varying from nought per cent. in such places as St. Albans to the staggering figure of 60 per cent. in Sheffield Taking the more cautious X-ray figure, we must conclude that about 24,000 children in this country still suffer from rickets every year, which is entirely unnecessary. These figures may have changed a little lately, because since January, 1944, the whole cream dried milk issued by the Ministry of Food has had vitamin D added to it, sufficient to give 800 units per pint. But the problem remains a big one, because only children up to nine months of age are liable to get this dried milk and, of course, most children do not receive it at all. The cause of rickets is lack of vitamin D or calciferol. One-fiftieth of a milligram—that is, about one-fiftieth of a pin's head—of this calciferol each day is all that is needed to prevent rickets. During the war it has been the policy of the Ministry of Food—and a good policy too—to make available vitamin D2 along with the other vitamins cheap or free in the country. Orange juice containing vitamin C, and cod liver oil containing vitamins A and D2, have been the media chosen, but they have not been entirely


successful, as the Ministry of Health figures which I have just quoted show.
In April, 1944, the wartime social survey made an inquiry for the Ministry of Food, the results of which are available to hon. Members of this House. About 900 mothers with young children were studied, and they were selected at random. It was found that about 70 per cent. of these were collecting their orange juice and only 40 per cent. were collecting their cod liver oil. Why is it that 30 per cent. were failing altogether to get their vitamin supplements? I think there were two main reasons. First there was the failure to appreciate the importance from the health point of view of collecting these vitamin supplements, and, secondly, physical difficulties in the collection—for instance, the distance from the distributing centres, awkward times of opening or difficulties in connection with minding other children in the family. The answer to the first reason is simple—more health education. The answer to the second is more improvement and imagination in the distributing machine. But even when we have got these right, there remains the relative unpopularity of cod liver oil, and anyone who has tasted it realises why. It is not surprising that in children over one year of age the consumption of cod liver oil rapidly falls off, but not that of orange juice. The persevering mother may stick to it and win the battle, but it is among the unpersevering and less conscientious ones that the danger of the lack of vitamin D is most serious. There is another factor. These babies are very liable to spit out the cod liver oil, and cod liver oil stains on the clothes are almost impossible to remove, as anyone who has tried to do it knows. This is another factor which discourages mothers from giving it to the children.
I will now say a few words about the alternatives. Cod liver oil and malt is much more popular with children than is cod liver oil, but it will not prevent rickets unless it has extra Vitamin D added to it. One of the commonest causes of rickets is relying on cod liver oil and malt to prevent it. There is, however, one real alternative, and I want to urge the Government to give this a fair trial in one or two of our Northern towns. One-tenth milligram of calciferol—that is, enough Vitamin D for one week—can be dissolved quite easily in about 15 milligrams—that

is, 15 pins heads in volume—of bland arachis oil. That mixes perfectly and tastelessly with cocoa-butter and can be used for making chocolates which cannot be distinguished in taste from ordinary chocolate. A small penny bar of chocolate, taken once a week, thus contains everything that is needed to prevent rickets. I am quite certain such a food supplement would be quite as popular, if not more popular, with the mothers and the children than the orange juice is at present.
There are two possible objections to this proposal. The first, the more serious one, is that such chocolate would not contain the Vitamin A which cod liver oil contains. It might be possible to add to the chocolate 'pro-vitamin A (carotene) which, inside the body, changes into Vitamin A. In any case, unlike Vitamin D, there are many natural sources of Vitamin A available, for example milk and vegetables, and it is almost certain that children would in fact get the Vitamin A they need from existing natural sources of Vitamin A, particularly from their extra priority milk. The second objection is that the chocolate might not be used for the proper purpose, and that it might find itself in the wrong place or in the stomach of the wrong child This danger, of course, already exists with the orange juice, which is sometimes shared out with a whole family and goes where it is not intended to go. But even the feckless mothers almost always want to do what is right for their babies, provided it is not too difficult. I believe the enormous majority would in fact put the chocolate where it ought to go, that is, into the mouth of the child. In any case, the only way to find this out is to try a small experiment. It might prove a failure, but that is what experiments are for, to find out if they work before we make a mistake on a large scale. However, it might prove a success, and, if so, surely the target of getting rid of 24,000 cases of rickets per year in childhood is something which is worth while aiming at.
Rickets has really ceased to be a medical disease and become a political one. Its prevention is in the hands of this Government and of the House. I suggest it is our job to see that rickets in Britain is made as rare as the bubonic plague. I believe we can do it inside the life of a Parliament if we really want to.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: May I just ask the hon. Member for Barnet (Dr. Taylor) this question? I know it is not his intention to mislead the House, but he has indicated that the cause of this disease is one of food deficiency. Is it not true the Sheffield school discovery was, that it was not only deficiency of food but also a deficiency of sunlight? You could give a child-all the vitamins and all the foodstuffs that he has already told us about, but at the same time it would be possible to have rickets unless the child had either sunlight or artificial sunlight.

Dr. Taylor: I cannot quite agree with what the hon. Member has just said. Sunshine is an alternative for Vitamin D and not a supplement to Vitamin D. Sunshine in fact forms Vitamin D in the skin, but it can be taken just as satisfactorily by mouth and got into circulation in that way. It is perfectly possible to bring children up in cellars, and provided they get enough Vitamin D they do not get rickets.

9.35 P.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Key): I am certain the House will not expect me to talk with the same learned assurance with regard to this matter as the speech of my hon. Friend indicated he has the capacity to do. I have got, as far as I can, to speak on behalf of my Department in this matter. With regard to the investigation carried out in 1944 by the British Paedriatric Association, I want to draw attention to the fact that, in that investigation, when the same group of children was examined by several clinical observers and radiologists, the findings differed widely. However, making allowances for those differences, it is true that evidence of the existence of rickets in a mild form was found in two and a half per cent. of children under the age of six months, and about four per cent. of children under the age of 12 months, with a negligible number above that age. The first important conclusion to be drawn from that is, that despite our difficulties of feeding and so on, there had been no increase of rickets during the war.
The report of that inquiry was considered by the Medical Sub-committee of the Minister's Advisory Committee on Mothers and Young Children, and various recommendations arising out of the report were made. Those recommendations have

been accepted by the Minister and have been acted upon. The Committee found that national cod liver oil, at its present potency of some 700 or 800 international units of vitamin D per teaspoonful, really did contain an adequate concentration of that particular vitamin. They suggested that increased publicity should be given to the necessity for mothers to obtain a supply of the national compound, and that great attention should be given to instructing them on the importance of vitamin D. Through whatever organisations we could use—the B.B.C., the maternity and child welfare centres, and so on—such advice and publicity has been given. They also made recommendations that vitamin D should be added, as my hon. Friend has said, to national dried milk, and that is being done.
The uptake of cod liver oil is a matter of concern to the Ministry, and has been for some time, and it would seem that, in spite of the publicity and attempts which have been made at education, there has not been a very substantial improvement in consumption. The actual consumption at present is about 25 per cent. of the potential—that is, some 25 per cent. of mothers with children under the age of five are taking their amount of cod liver oil. It is not a definite proportion; the figure varies considerably, but the irregularities seem to indicate a smaller consumption in summer than in winter. I might add that the figure of 25 per cent. pays no regard to the possible consumption of various proprietary brands which may be available. To explain this lack of take-up of cod liver oil, the usual reason has been that which my hon. Friend has given, namely, the factor of palatability. Consideration has been given to the possibilities of improving the palatability of the cod liver oil. There have been difficulties, because even if you take the simple process of cold-clearing during production, it is found that there is an increase of anything between 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the cost of production and a loss of something like 10 per cent. of the availability. As a result, therefore, we felt that, perhaps, other methods ought to be adopted. Our investigations have shown that the palatability element is really one that, perhaps, is largely due to the way in which the cod liver oil is given to the child. In the nurseries where it is given under proper supervision palatability or lack of


palatability does not seem to be a factor that, interferes with consumption.
With regard to vitamised chocolate, as the hon. Member said, whilst it is possible under existing conditions to add vitamins A and D, and it is actually being done—vitarnised chocolate is being produced—there is a lack of vitamin A concentrate. This would be lost as a result of changing over from the use of cod liver oil. It is this difficulty of getting the necessary quantities of vitamin A which prevents the use of that method. It would not be possible, although we can get a good deal of cod liver oil, to use cod liver oil for the purpose of fortifying the chocolate. It is amongst the infants of the lower age that the need is for this addition, and we are advised that children of that age would not be properly treated if this chocolate were used for that purpose. We are doing everything we can in the way of investigating and carrying out experiments in co-operation with the Ministry of Food to find a practical means

of solving the problem. Orange juice has been suggested as one way. It is not at all certain we should not get the same difficulty with regard to palatability. We have adopted measures and increased measures for the fortification of margarine; and so far as expectant mothers are concerned the A and D vitamin tablets given to them in the centres and so on are a contribution towards this.
I am sure my Ministry are glad that this matter has been put forward for public consideration here, and perhaps, the discussion will help towards giving this matter publicity. I do want to emphasise that all our experience has shown that if cod liver oil is given as a routine matter from the age of one month onwards the factor of palatability does not prevent its consumption in the way the hon. Gentleman suggested

Question put, and agreed to

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter to Ten o'Clock.